RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing Criminal Misc. Nos.16720-M, 16722-M and 39649-M of 2006. However, the facts have been noticed from Criminal Misc. No. 16720-M of 2006.
(2.) PRAYER in the petition is for quashing of complaint no.59/17-12- 2005 dated 8.10.2005, under Section 190 Cr.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(iv) and (v) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Annexure P1), and the summoning order dated 17.12.2005 (Annexure P2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that filing of criminal complaint by respondent no. 2/complainant against the petitioners is nothing else but abuse of process of law, if the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are considered. The father of the petitioners inherited 90 acres of land on 10.6.1954, a part of which was declared surplus in 1961. As the same was not utilised, on an application filed by the petitioners, vide order dated 15.7.1978 (Annexure P3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) and Prescribed Authority, Rohtak, under the Haryana Ceiling and Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act"), it was directed that the land in question be not utilized to rehabilitate the Chatter under the Scheme 1976 of the Act. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (C) was challenged by respondent no. 2/complainant before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, whereby the same was upheld vide order dated 22.12.2004 (Annexure P4), for the simple reason that the revision had been filed after 26 years of the passing of the impugned order dated 15.7.1978. Thereafter, respondent no.2/ complainant filed civil suit on 16.4.2005 challenging the order dated 15.7.1978 of Sub- Divisional Officer (C) and order dated 22.12.2004 of Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, respectively. It was, thereafter, that the present complaint was filed on 8.10.2005, when the civil litigation between the parties was already pending. The allegations in the complaint are that a part of the land out of surplus area of Village Farmana Khas was allotted to respondent no.2- complainant on 14.11.1977 for a consideration. The first instalment was deposited on 21.8.1978 and the possession was given on 20.6.1985. It was further alleged that the petitioners were in wrongful possession of the land which had already been allotted to respondent no.2/complainant and they were not allowing the complainant to derive the benefits thereon.
(3.) IN the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint has been filed against the petitioners with the false and concocted allegations as is established from the uncontroverted material on record. The civil litigation for the land allegedly allotted to respondent no.2/complainant was already pending when the complaint was filed. The prayer is for the quashing of the complaint.;