TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1982. 4. Allegedly, the land in question was said to have been transferred to one Kahla Singh by the Tehsildar in the year 1977-78. He filed a suit being Civil suit No.309 against his daughter-in-law wherein a decree acknowledging a transfer in favour of the latter was passed. The appellants are said to have made a representation before the concerned authority in relation to the functioning of the school after passing of the aforementioned decree came to their knowledge. It is stated that a report dated 14.1.1983 was submitted by the then Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana showing the school to be an existing one whereafter the name of the appellants had been recorded in the record of rights. They filed a suit in the year 1990 praying for a decree for possession. By reason of a judgment dated 15.3.1990, the said suit was decreed. In the said suit, State of Punjab, Collector Ludhiana as well as the said Kahla Singh were arrayed as defendants. 5. An order of mutation was thereafter passed in their favour which, however, is said to have been cancelled. Indisputably, a proposal was moved for lodging of a First Information Report. 6. Appellants sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration, Ludhiana issued notice to the school assessing the house tax. House Tax is being paid by the appellants. 9. In the suit filed by the Everest School, applications were filed by the supporters of respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their impleadment which were dismissed. However, in a meeting dated 11.9.2000, again a resolution was moved wherein a decision was taken to lodge a First Information Report against the appellants in the following terms : The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana informed on the application submitted by Sat Pal Gausain MLA on behalf of certain residents of Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana regarding illegal possession of some persons on property No.918/4 that the land being ownership of Rehabilitation Department no amount on the construction can be spent. The President ordered that accused who exchanged the area, an FIR be registered against them and necessary correspondence be made between Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and the item was deleted from the agenda. 10. Pursuant to the said resolution, a First Information Report was lodged, relevant portions whereof reads as under : From t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e registered. You are hereby informed that keeping in view order of District Grievance Committee meeting held on 11.9.2000, necessary case be registered against above said accused persons and this office may be informed about the action taken therein. 11. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the said First Information Report which by reason of the impugned order has been dismissed. 12. Mr. D.K. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend: (i) The High Court committed a serious error in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the admitted events would clearly and unequivocally show that the First Information Report lodged by the respondents was an act of mala fide on their part and based on political consideration. (ii) Appellants having obtained a decree in their favour, a criminal proceeding would not be maintainable. (iii) The contents of the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not disclose an offence cognizable far less under Sections 420/465/467/468/4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts merely is an evidence of possession. [See Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 12]. 17. Such an entry does not create title; absence thereof does not extinguish the same. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the appellants had committed acts of criminal misconduct while trying to obtain orders of mutation but it is another thing to say that only because they filed such an application, the same by itself would tantamount to commission of a criminal offence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, only because appellants are said to have transferred a portion of the property without having complete ownership over them by itself do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and 469. This aspect of the matter is covered by a recent decision of this Court in Devendra Ors. v. State of U.P. Anr. [2007 (9) SCC 613]. 18. We, however, make it clear that we do not intend to lay down a law that the judgment of the Civil Court would be binding on a criminal court in view of several decisions of this Court. In Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad [2009 (5) SCALE 527], this Court, while referri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
