VED PARKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for quashing of FIR No. 55 dtd. 12/4/2019 registered under Sec. 453 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC) in Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh.

(2.) The above-said FIR was registered on complaint made by Rajesh Kumar Sharma through his brother-in-law Rajiv Kumar Dutta. In the complaint Rajesh Kumar Sharma alleged that he is living in New Zealand since 2001. He is in possession of House No. 172, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh since its construction in 1962. His elder brother (Suresh Kumar Sharma) lives in the upper floor. In 2012 his elder brother Suresh Kumar Sharma's wife forcibly broke open the door and started some construction work. When care taker Babloo told him about the same, the matter was brought to the notice of NRI Cell and DDR dtd. 22/2/2012 was lodged in Police Station Sector-19, Chandigarh. The construction work was immediately stopped and possession was restored to him. The police was also informed about the pending litigation regarding the above-said house. On 11/12/12/2019 around 2 o'clock his two step brothers Ved Parkash Sharma (the petitioner) and Surinder Kumar Sharma and Manju Sharma wife of Ved Parkash Sharma came there and asked care taker Babloo for the keys of the ground floor of the house who did not give keys to them and made a telephonic call to him. The above-said persons called police on the spot. He (the complainant) talked to the police officer regarding DDR dtd. 22/2/2012 on which the police officer stopped the above-said persons from breaking the door, told them that they could not enter into the house and went back to the Police Station. After about thirty minutes Ved Parkash Sharma, Surinder Kumar Sharma and Manju Sharma forcibly broke the lock and entered into the house and afterwards put their own lock. While mentioning about dismissal of civil suit for declaration and possession filed by the petitioner on the basis of Will dtd. 25/2/1988 and also of the appeal filed against the same by him (the petitioner) and claiming that possession of the complainant was not in dispute and was admitted throughout in the Court proceedings, the complainant requested for restoration of the possession of ground floor of the house in dispute and prosecution of the above-said persons for tress-passing, theft and mis-appropriation of goods.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the above-said FIR with consequential proceedings on the averments that House No. 172, Sector-20-A, Chandigarh was owned by Shri Kanth Sharma, father of petitioner (Ved Parkash Sharma) and complainant-Raj esh Kumar Sharma. Shri Kanth Sharma executed Will dtd. 25/2/1988 bequeathing the house in dispute in favour of the petitioner. Shri Kanth Sharma died on 2/7/1992. When the petitioner claimed the ownership of the house in dispute on the basis of the above-said Will, the complainant refused to admit the same. Civil Suit and Civil Appeal filed by the petitioner were dismissed but Regular Second Appeal No. 3188 of 2014 titled 'Ved Parkash Sharma Vs. S.K. Sharma and others' is pending in this Court. The petitioner and the complainant are in joint possession of the house in dispute along with other legal heirs. FIR was got registered on mere hearsay after about four months of the alleged occurrence on concocted allegations to harass the petitioner and to prevent him to return to India and pursue his civil litigation. The complainant and his brother-in-law did not get their statements recorded. The caretaker admitted that the petitioner used to visit and stay in the house in dispute and civil cases were pending regarding the same. The petitioner entered into the house after prior information to the local police and made some minor repairs to secure the house in dispute which is in dilapidated condition from trespass/misuse/illegal occupation. The matter involves dispute of civil nature. Offence under Sec. 453 of the IPC is not made out and the FIR and proceedings arising out of the same are abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed.