- (1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of DDR No.20 dated 16.03.2014 (Annexure P-6) under Sections 341, 325, 323, 201, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, recorded in F.I.R. No.23 dated 15.03.2014 under Sections 447, 325, 323, 201, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Tallewal, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) In support of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 was Sarpanch of Village Raisar and petitioner No.2 is her father-in-law, who is pretty old. The complainant-respondent No.2 and his father and brothers wanted to take illegal possession of village lands and not only that 40% of the land meant for Majhbi Sikhs and Ramdasia Sikhs of the village allotted for their use was encroached by them. The counsel further contended that in the capacity as elected Sarpanch of the village, it was the bounden duty of petitioner No.1 to protect the village land, that too particularly when the same was allotted for common purposes for Majhbi Sikhs and Ramdasia Sikhs. The respondent No.2 continued his efforts to grab the land and, therefore, the petitioner No.1 was compelled to file a civil suit for permanent injunction in which the Civil Court, vide order dated 13.01.2014 made an order issuing injunction against respondent No.2. Despite the said order, the respondent No.2 continued to take possession on 15.03.2014 and when scheduled caste persons tried to stop them, they were assaulted and, as such, on the report of one Gurtej Singh, F.I.R. No.23 dated 15.03.2014 under Sections 447, 325, 323, 201, 506, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, was registered against respondent No.2 and others. Not only that, for disobedience of the order of the civil court, contempt petition was also filed. The respondent No.2 has, thus, been indulging in encroachment over the land meant for scheduled caste persons. As a result of the FIR being lodged by scheduled caste persons, the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the village on 15.03.2014 and petitioner No.1 being Sarpanch of the Village was called to assist his team. She assisted the Deputy Superintendent of Police but then respondent No.2 lodged a counter false report (DDR No. in question) against the petitioners levelling totally false allegations. Even otherwise, a reading of the allegations in the DDR shows that there is absolutely no case against the petitioners and the only allegation against the petitioner No.1 is that she had raised a Lalkara. The name of the petitioner No.2 is not to be found anywhere. He, therefore, submits that the DDR filed was purely out of frustration and illegal motive on the part of respondent No.2 and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the respondent Nho.2 had made allegations about an assault, etc., though it is true that there are no allegations against the petitioners about any overt act on their part. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. None appeared for respondent No.2.;