- (1.) This petition, filed by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the 3rd & 4th respondents (in their official capacity, though they have been impleaded by name), under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C., on a complaint/application filed by respondent No.5.
(2.) As per the complaint dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-11), the first petitioner had executed an agreement to sell his land measuring 31 bighas and 10 biswas to respondent No.5 in the year 1995 and Rs. 8 lacs were paid in cash on the spot and the remaining amount of '1.5 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The application further states that the possession of the land was handed over to respondent No.5 at the time of taking the earnest money of Rs. 8 lacs but thereafter the first petitioner had refused to get the sale deed registered, leading to respondent No.5 filing a suit seeking specific performance in the competent court, which, "after being heard by various courts, is now admitted in the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh". The application further states that since 1995, the applicant (respondent No.5) was cultivating the land and that the revenue record was continuously recorded in his name. The allegation in the application is that, thereafter, on the date of application, i.e. 8.5.2013, the lock of the room containing a tubewell bore had been broken by the second respondent (who is the son of the first respondent) and one spade had also been stolen. The applicant therefore, in effect, sought that the second respondent be restrained from interfering with his possession. He further stated that the decision of the High Court "would be acceptable to me" and that action be taken against the second respondent, i.e. Surjit Singh.
(3.) Upon the above application, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. and arrested the first and second petitioners.;