Gurwinder Pal Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another

1
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


IN T

AB AND HARYANA
DIGARH
CRM-M-43107-2021(O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA
AT CHAND
C
D

126


GURWINDE
R PAL SINGH AND ANOTHE
ER …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF P
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS

Sr.
No.
Particu

ulars
1. The day
y when the judgment is reserved
13.10.2026

2. The day
y when the judgment is pronounc

ced 02.11.2026
3. The day
website
y when the judgment is uploaded

e
d on 02.11.2026
4. Whethe
pronoun
er only operative part of the judg
gment is
Full
nced or full judgment is pronoun

nced
5. The del
judgme
lay, if any, of the pronouncemen

ent and reasons thereof
nt of full Not applicable

CORAM: HO
ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALI
Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate
INI SINGH NAGPAL

Argued By : M
fo

M

M
fo
or the petitioners.
Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punja
ab.
Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
or respondent No.2.


SHALINI SIN

1. V
*
NGH NAGPAL, JUDGE

Vide this petition under Section
482 Criminal Procedure Code,
,
petitioner see
ks quashing of order dated
15.09.2021 passed by learned
d
Additional S
Sessions Judge, Patiala, settin
ng aside discharge order dated
d
14.08.2019 of
learned Judicial Magistrate F
First Class, Patiala in
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


FIR No.37 d
ated 26.02.2018 under Section
s 379, 447, 511, 506, 201, 34
4
Indian Penal C
Code, 1860, Police Station Civil L
Lines Patiala, District Patiala.
2. T
he FIR was lodged on complain
nt of Paramjit Singh, who stated
d
that he was re
esident of House No.48, Pritam
Park Colony, Ablowal, Patiala,
,
Police Station
n Civil Lines, Patiala and was
an agriculturist. He was also
o
President of P
Pritam Park Welfare Society. Th
here was a park in front of his
s
house, made
in memory of Numberdar Pri
itam Singh Kharoud Ablowal.
.
Foundation sto
one was laid in the name of Prita
am Singh Kharoud Ablowal and
d
boundary wall
l of 3 feet was constructed arou
und the Park. Few days ago, he
e
and other resid
dents of the society put earth in
the Park after raising boundary
y
walls and fixe
ed foundation stone. Gurwinder
Pal Singh son of Late Narinder
r
Pal resident o
of Pritam Park Colony prevente
ed them from doing so, staking
g
claim on the a
area of Park. On 18.02.2018, Gu
urwinder Pal Singh and his wife
e
Simran Kaur @
@ Mandeep Kaur committed th
heft of foundation stone, affixed
d
on the wall of
f the Park. On 23.02.2018, Gur
rwinder Pal Singh and his wife
e
along with 8-1
10 unidentified persons tried to
take possession of Pritam Park.
.
When they trie
ed to stop them, they were abuse
ed and given threats. When other
r
persons of the
e locality reached, they fled from
m the spot. Legal action against
t
Gurwinder Pal
l Singh and his wife Simran Kau
ur @ Mandeep Kaur was prayed
d
for. Upon com
mpletion of investigation, final re
eport under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
.
was forwarded
d for trial of the petitioners und
der Sections 379, 447, 511, 506,
,
201 Indian Pen
nal Code,1860.
3. L
earned Judicial Magistrate Firs
st Class, Patiala heard learned
d
APP for the S
State, learned defense counsel
and discharged the petitioners
s
under Sections
s 379 and 447 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, on the ground that
t
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


copy of jamab
bandi of the disputed property r
recorded the petitioners/accused
d
as co-sharers
in possession and prosecution d
did not annex any document to
o
prove that the
e disputed property was a park.
. Since the jamabandi recorded
d
possession of t
the accused over the disputed pro
operty, there was no prima facie
e
case made out
against them. Petitioners/accuse
ed were accordingly discharged.

4. R
Respondent No.2/complainant
filed a revision petition
n
challenging th
e order of discharge before the S
Sessions Court, Patiala. Learned
d
Additional Se
essions Judge, Patiala vide imp
pugned order dated 15.09.2021

allowed the rev
vision petition and set aside orde
er of discharge dated 14.08.2019
9
of learned Jud
dicial Magistrate First Class, P
Patiala observing that two sale
e
deeds executed
d by father of accused Gurwinde
er Pal Singh namely Narinderpal
l
Singh reflected
d that there was a park adjoinin
ng plot No.22 and plot No.37 in
n
Pritam Park C
Colony. Even the report of the re
evenue officials indicated that a
a
park was left
by Narinderpal Singh father of
f accused No.1, who originally
y
carved out colo
ony from his land.
5. L
earned counsel for the petitio
oner submits that earlier, the
e
property was o
owned and possessed by Narind
derpal Singh father of petitioner
r
No.1, who ex
xecuted a registered Will in f
favour of petitioner No.1 and
d
mutation was a
accordingly sanctioned. The disp
pute related to khasra No.545. In
n
the column of
f jamabandi for the year 2014-
-15 (Annexure P-1), petitioners
s
were both rec
orded as co-sharers in joint po
ossession. They had constructed
d
boundary wall
l in the property 3-4 years ago,
which was still in existence at
t
spot. One prop
perty dealer started claiming titl
le in the land and tried to sell it
t
by demomilish
hing boundary wall of the plot.
The FIR was lodged under his
s
influence.
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


6. It
t was argued that the report of t
the revenue official relied upon
n
by the prosecu
ution was prepared in the absenc
ce of the petitioners, on the basis
s
of some inquir
ry from residents of the area and
d sale deeds. There was no entry
y
in the revenue
record regarding any park exist
ting at spot nor ownership of the
e
land in dispute
e was examined by the revenue o
official. Police submitted challan
n
on completion
n of investigation, ignoring the fa
actual and documentary position,
,
in connivance
with the complainant party who
o wanted to illegally occupy the
e
plot. Report o
f Halqa Patwari was silent abou
ut the ownership of petitioners.
.
Petitioners had
d filed a civil suit for declara
ation that they were owners in
n
possession of
land bearing khasra No.545, s
situated in the village Ablowal,
,
Patiala. Learn
ed trial Court, after hearing bo
oth sides, rightly discharged the
e
petitioners and
d the Court in revision failed to c
correctly appreciate the material
l
on record, wh
hich was part of the final inves
stigation report. The Revisional
l
Court passed
impugned order without con
nsidering that petitioners were
e
owners of the
disputed land and offences unde
er Section 379 and 447 of Indian
n
Penal Code, 1
1860 were not made out. No sa
anctity could be attached to the
e
boundaries giv
ven in the sale deeds. There wa
s no prima facie case made out
t
against the p
etitioners to justify framing o
of charges. Thus, order dated
d
15.09.2021(An
nnexure P-8) passed by learne
ed Additional Sessions Judge,
,
Patiala deserve
ed to be set aside being illegal, n
null and void.
7. St
tatus report dated 08.10.2026 by
y way of an affidavit of Sanjeev
v
Singla, PPS, D
Deputy Superintendent of Poli
ce, City-1, District Patiala has
s
been filed on
behalf of respondent No.1-Sta
ate of Punjab in compliance of
f
order dated 07
.07.2026, which is taken on reco
ord.
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


8. L
earned State counsel assisted by
y learned counsel for respondent
t
No.2 submits
that the report of Revenue Dep
partment (Annexure P-3) was a
a
part of the poli
ice challan which indicated that
a park existed at the spot, where
e
petitioners wer
re claiming ownership. Sale dee
ed bearing vasika No.1418 dated
d
06.05.2002 wa
as verified from the revenue off
ficials and was taken into police
e
possession. Th
he Court in revision correctly
appreciated the documents on
n
record to prim
a facie believe existence of park
k on the disputed land. Annexure
e
P-13 and Anne
exure P-18, sale deeds both prov
ved existence of a park adjoining
g
the properties
sold in the colony. The Court in
n revision, therefore, committed
d
no illegality w
while setting aside order of le
arned Judicial Magistrate First
t
Class, Patiala d
dated 14.08.2019.
9. T
he dispute in the case relate
es to land of khasra No.545,
,
rectangle No.4
4270 khatauni No.1956 situate
ed at village Ablowal, District
t
Patiala. The c
complainant, who is resident of
f Pritam Park Colony, Ablowal,
,
Patiala claims
to be President of Pritam Park W
Welfare Society and alleges that
t
the petitioners
s tried to encroach upon the pa
ark in the colony and also took
k
away the fou
undation stone. Entire claim o
of the petitioners is based on
n
Annexure P-1,
, copy of jamabandi for the year
2014-15, which records them as
s
co-owners in
joint possession. It is petitione
er’s own case that the property
y
originally belo
onged to Late Narinderpal Singh
h father of petitioner No.1, who
o
executed a reg
gistered Will in his favour. Peti
itioners have brought on record
d
Annexure P-13
3 and Annexure P-18, sale deed
ds dated 06.05.2002, 04.07.2002
2
executed by L
Late Narinderpal Singh son of Ra
achhpal Singh in favour of third
d
persons in res
spect of Plot No.22 and Plot N
No.37 in Pritam Park Colony,
,
village Ablow
wal, Tehsil and District Pa
atiala carved out of Khasra
a
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


No.545min/0-7
7. In both sale deeds, which are
part of report under Section 173

Cr.P.C., the bo
oundaries of the plots sold show
a park measuring 70 feet on the
e
southern side.
Annexure P-10 site plan which i
is also a part of the police report
t
shows that as
many as 33 plots are carved ou
ut in khasra No.545. This apart,
,
the Investigati
ing Officer applied to Tehsildar
r Patiala vide Annexure P-14 to
o
verify the own
nership and possession of the d
disputed property. As per report
t
Annexure P-1
6 of concerned Revenue Office
er, Patwari Halqa, Ablowal, an
n
inquiry was c
conducted on the basis of sale
deeds bearing vasika No.1418
8
dated 06.05.20
002 and sale deed bearing vasik
ka No.5054 dated 04.07.2002. A
A
park was found
d recorded towards the southern
side of the plots.
10. Sa
ale deeds Annexure P-13, An
nnexure P-18 and investigation
n
done by the P
Police, prima facie reveal that t
there is a colony carved out in
n
khasra No.545
5. The entries in the revenue rec
cord jamabandi (Annexure P-1)
)
are apparently
y against the actual and factual p
position existing at the spot and
d
are sufficiently
y rebutted. As per settled princ
ciples of law, jamabandi entries
s
lose their sig
gnificance when residential ho
ouses are constructed thereon.
.
Jamabandi (An
nnexure P-1) does not depict the
true position at spot. This being
g
so, petitioners
’ ownership and possession rec
corded in the revenue document
t
(Annexure P-1
1) could not have been made ba
asis of a finding “discharge ” by
y
learned Trial
Court. Investigating agency ha
as brought on record sufficient
t
material to sho
ow prima facie that there was
a park in khasra No.545. Thus,
,
finding of lear
rned Trial Court that no such do
ocument was annexed, is against
t
record. The Co
ourt in revision correctly relied u
upon the sale deeds in respect of
f
Plot No.22 and
d Plot No.37 in Pritam Park Colo
ony, village Ablowal depicting a
a
park on the sou
uthern side of the plots as also th
he report of the revenue officials
s
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CRM-M-431
107-2021(O&M)


to upset the fi
indings of the learned Trial Cou
urt. The materials placed before
e
the Court by
the investigating agency disclo
ose grave suspicion against the
e
petitioner/accu
used, to justify framing of charge
es. The documents taken at their
r
face value, d
disclose existence of ingredien
nts of the offences for which
h
petitioners are
facing trial. It is not a case wher
re two views are possible. Thus,
,
learned Trial C
Court committed illegality while
e discharging the accused on the
e
basis of the rev
venue record.
11. T
here is no apparent illegality o
or perversity in the order dated
d
15.09.2021 of
f learned Additional Sessions
s Judge, Patiala allowing the
e
revision petiti
ion, against the order of disc
charge. No interference in the
e
impugned orde
er is called for.
12. T
he petition, which is bereft of m
erit, stands dismissed.
13. Pe
ending miscellaneous application
ns, if any, stands disposed of.


(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Jyoti-V

Whether Speaking/Reasoned :
Whether Reportable :


Yes/No
Yes/No
JYOTI
2026.11.02 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document