IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (129)

Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 (Through V.C.)

Meena Chhikara …... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is for quashing of the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025 (P-10) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 (P-8) passed by the SDJM, Rohtak vide which the complaint (P- 7) of the petitioner for investigation and registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused/respondents No.2 and 3, has been dismissed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner-complainant (hereinafter known as the petitioner) that her father had purchased a plot measuring 707 sq. yards from Killa No.330//4/2 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/situated in village Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak vide sale deed no. 1926 dated 3.6.1989 from Bishan Singh son of Kure, resident of Village Bohar through GPA holder Sunil Kumar. The possession of the plot was given to her father on the spot and he constructed four walls on the said plot and fixed a gate on the northern side of the same. The father of the petitioner used to visit the site from time to time and always found the walls and gate intact. Thereafter, he orally gifted this property to the petitioner in the year 2015 as he was suffering from various ailments and thus, he wanted to transfer the property to her. For that purpose, he came to Rohtak to complete the transfer formalities but he was surprised to see that that boundary wall and gate were not in existence on his plot. Due to this situation, Mahinder Singh-her father visited the office of the Tehsildar for identification of his property and for sanctioning mutation in her favour and for completing other legal formalities required for transfer of property. At that time, he came to know that there was only 11.4 marla land in killa no.330//4/2 and same was also transferred through sale deed no.5437 dated 09.12.1988 by the brother of Bishan Singh- accused No.2 and Sunil Kumar Goyal-accused no.1 was a signatory on the said sale deed. Thus, he came to know that the accused were well aware about the sale deed no.1926 dated 03.06.1989 and despite that he made false representation to him and induced him to purchase the plot in question and registered sale deed in the year 1989. Thereafter, she (petitioner) filed several complaints before the Chief Minister whereby an inquiry by SDM, Rohtak was conducted and it was found to be a case of fraud and cheating but no criminal action was taken against the accused persons. She also reported the matter to SP, Rohtak on 17.10.2016 and her father also filed a complaint but no action was taken leading to the filing of the criminal complaint.

3. Based on the evidence led, the complaint came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak (Annexure P-8) with the following observations:-

15. In the present case, the main allegation of complainant is that Sunil Kumar being power of attorney of Bishan Singh executed sale deed Ex.CW7/C in favour of father of complainant qua the property in question. Copy of the GPA is Ex.CW7/B on record. It is further the case of the complainant that Nafe Singh, who is real brother of Bishan Singh, in the year 1988, before execution of GPA Ex.CW7/B had executed sale deed Ex.CW7/A qua the property in question but the same was not disclosed to the father of complainant by Bishan Singh.

16. I have perused Ex.CW7/A, Ex.CW7/B and Ex.CW7/C and after perusal of these documents, it is clear that the property as mentioned in the sale executed in favour of father of complainant and sale deed executed by Nafe Singh is different as the dimensions of the property in both these sale deeds is entirely