IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.03.2026 Rajinder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. A.S.Nirmaan, Advocate for the petitioners.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 447, 511, 379, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.71 dated 16.05.2024, has been lodged in Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana. The petitioners are being prosecuted for the commission of above mentioned offence. Petitioners are aggrieved of their prosecution vide above mentioned FIR, and therefore, they have filed this petition for quashing of FIR.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance ‘Amarjit Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. In his compliant to Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna, the complainant had levelled allegations of illegal trespass into his property, and also of forcible taking over possession of property and theft of his property.

3. The pith and substance of the above mentioned complaint submitted by the complainant was that he was owner of plot No.73 situated in the area of Century Colony Khanna Kalan, purchased by him in the year 2001, and that for the identification of above mentioned plot, he had installed boundary markers on the boundaries of the above mentioned plot. According to complainant for some time he had left the country for Canada and in November 2023, when he came back he found that somebody had illegally constructed a boundary wall over the above mentioned plot and installed a gate. As per complainant when he made inquiries, about the person who was responsible for the above mentioned construction he came to know that it was done by ‘Kulwant Singh’ son of ‘Rajinder Singh’. While claiming that the possession had been illegally taken over, it was alleged by the complainant that the petitioners had committed the offence and action be taken against them.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned complaint formal FIR in this case lodged and the investigation was taken up.

5. Heard.

6. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR on the ground that the dispute between the parties, predominantly, is a dispute of civil nature as both the parties are staking their rival claims (qua the title) over the property in dispute. According to learned counsel for the petitioners by twisting the facts a dispute of civil nature has been converted into a criminal case and this practice has been repeatedly deprecated by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. While claiming that unless the title of the property is adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, it shall not be possible for a criminal Court arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was any illegal possession over the disputed property or not. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of above mentioned fact-situation the filing of FIR, in the instant case, is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

7. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down in the case of ‘State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335’, ‘Vishnu Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P.’, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582, ‘Mahmood Ali Vs. State of U.P.’, 2023 SCC Online SC 950, ‘Abhishek Saxena Vs. State of UP,’ 2023 SCC Online SC 1711, ‘Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P.’, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032, ‘Rajaram Sharma Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2024 and ‘Sujoy Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.’, SLP (Crl.) No.9452 of 2025.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows, and also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that with regard to above mentioned FIR the investigation is already complete and