news details |
|
|
| Property dispute can be settled in civil proceedings, not by criminal prosecution: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 9: Justice Sanjay Dhar while quashing FIR No 80/2018 for the offences under Sections 467/471/34 & 420 RPC registered with Police Station, Kathua against Amrik Singh & others observed that dispute between the petitioners and Respondent No 2 is essentially of a civil nature, inasmuch as one party is claiming to be the owner of the land sold by him, whereas the other party is claiming that the seller has executed the Agreement to Sell in respect of the land which is beyond his share. Such a dispute can be settled in civil proceedings and not by launching criminal prosecution. Allowing the criminal proceedings to go on in a case of such nature would encourage the people to settle the matters of civil nature by having resort to criminal proceedings which is impressible in law.
The facts, giving rise to the filing of instant petition, are that petitioners No 1 and 2 entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 2 kanals comprised under Khasra No 519 situated at Ward No 9 Taraf Manjli Tehsil and District Kathua with petitioner No 2 in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 14.01.2012. According to the petitioners, an amount of Rs 10 lakh was paid as part payment to petitioner No 3 and they were put in possession of the land in question. It is contended that petitioner No 3 was in exclusive possession of the land in question and the other co-sharers had conveyed their no objection to the execution of the Agreement to Sell by petitioner No 3 in favour of other petitioners. It is also contended that Respondent No 2 has nothing to do with the land in question and that he has never been in possession of the same. It is averred that, on an earlier occasion, Respondent No 2 had lodged FIR for offence under Section 447 RPC against petitioner No.1, but after investigation, the said case was closed. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, in order to harass and pressurize the petitioners, after closure of earlier FIR, moved an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and on the directions of the said Court, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners.
The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on several grounds. The main grounds urged by the petitioners are that the contents of the FIR do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners, even if same are taken at their face value. It is further urged that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2, if any, is essentially a civil dispute and criminal prosecution is not maintainable in a case of such nature.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing Sr. Adv LK Sharma for the petitioners observed that this is a fit case where the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C (corresponding to Section 482 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure) to prevent the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 80/2018 for the offences under Sections 467/471/34 RPC registered with Police Station, Kathua and the proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
