- (1.) Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two petitions, would be disposed of. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of the complaint dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P1) and subsequent orders passed in pursuance thereto.
(2.) Contents of the complaint (Annexure P1) in question read as under:- "1. That the complainant is resident of Hisar and his sons Anil and Vikash sons of Madan Lal during the business of saw machine in Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 situated in Hisar. The saw machine is running on the spot since 1988. 2. That Hari Chand son of Rohan Das got executed a sale deed No. 4963 dated 28.11.1985 regarding Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9 min (1K-13M) and killa No. 26 min (0K-07M) total 2 Kanal 0 marla situated in Hisar in favour of accused 5 to 10 through Ramphal General Power of Attorney. Copy of sale deed is attached alongwith the complaint. 3. That in the masavi Rectangle No.109 Killa No. 9/1 (6-3) and 9/2 (1-7) area has been shown. Copy of masavi is attached. 4. That the above said Hari Chand was owner of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/1 (6-13) and 9/2 (1-7) situated in Hisar and he got executed the sale deed of specific no of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/1 and 9/2. 5. That the accused no 5 to 10 with the collusion of accused no 1 to 4 got mutation entered of above said sale deed, mutation no. 9607 dated 25.7.2000 and mutation no. 4736 dated 25.7.2000. As per mutation no. 9607 dated 25.7.2000 the accused no 5 to 10 had been shown owner in possession of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7), situated at Hisar, whereas on the spot the accused no. 5 to 10 were not in possession of the said land. Whereas as per sale deed no. 4963 dated 28.11.1985 Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7) situated at Hisar was not sold, beside this as per mutation no. 4736 dated 5.7.2000, it has been shown as owner of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/1/1 (0-3) and killa No. 26/1(0-9) situated at Hisar. Whereas as per sale deed no. 4963 dated 28.11.1985 only the area of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 26 min (0-7) was sold and killa no 9/1/1 (0-3) of Rectangle was not sold. Thus accused no. 1 to 4 with the collusion of accused no 5 to 10 got prepared intentionally wrong mutation so that accused no. 5 to 10 may cause loss to the sons of complaint namely Anil, Pardeep sons of Ami Chand, Amar Singh son of Nanak Ram Vikash son of Madan Lal, who are in possession of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7), situated at Hisar and may cause damage to the persons in possession namely Mulakh Raj son of Aci Lal in Rectangle No. 109/9/1(0-3) and 26/1 (09) situated at Hisar. Copy of mutation no. 4736 and 9607 are hereby attached. These both mutations are wrong and forged and the accused are using the same. 6. That accused no, 5 to 10 got the demarcation by giving the application through their friends/relatives by filing the application through Tehsildar Hisar of Rectangle No. 109 Killa No. 9/2 (1-7) and on the basis of demarcation in killa no. 9/2 (1- 7) of rectangle no.109 situated at Hisar, Dalip and Pardeep sons of Ami Chand having their pacaka house 20'x45' and Amar Singh son of Nanak Ram having his packa house 60'x32' and Vikash son of Madan Lal and Anil son of Tek Ram constructed their house 10'x15' and boundary wall 93'x27/1/2' beside this on kila no 9/1 (0-3) and 26/1(0-9) of rectangle no. 109 the two shops, chobara, Dharam Kanta, Ghar, Boundary wall and house etc of Mulkh Raj had been shown. 7. That in view of the above said wrong mutation accused no 5 to 10 wanted to forcibly dispossessd the sons of complainant who are in possession of killa no. 9/2 (1-7) killa no. 9/1 (0-3) and 26.1 (0-9) of rectangle 109. One application was given in police station on 6.12.2006. 8. That on 12.10.2006 about 3 pm accused no. 5,6,11 and 12 came to the godown of Tek Chand and Anil situated at Jahajpur had given a threat of murder to Anil, Vikash and Mulakh Raj and stated that the above said land on which saw machine is there is belonging to them. Mulkh Raj etc gave the information to S P Hisar regarding this occurrence but no action has been taken. Thus, it is prayed that the accused may be summoned and strict action may be taken against them."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant was not owner of the land in question. The land in question had been sold by Hari Chand to accused Nos. 5 to 10. Thereafter, mutation was sanctioned by accused No. 1 to 4 in favour of accused Nos. 5 to10. The owner had no dispute with regard to the sanctioning of the mutation in favour of accused Nos. 5 to 10. The complainant was neither owner nor in possession of the land in question and, hence, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable. It has further been submitted that the trial Court vide order dated 24.4.2007 had ordered the summoning of accused Nos. 5 to 10 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420,506,120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC' for short). In revision filed by the complainant against the said order, the Court of revision ordered the trial Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law as valid reasons for dismissing the complaint qua accused Nos 1 to 4 had not been given. Despite this, the trial Court vide order dated 10.2.2010 had ordered the summoning of accused No. 11 and 12 also.;