Om Parkash vs State Of Punjab And Another
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
124
1. CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M)
Om Parkash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
2. CRM-M-28798-2024 (O&M)
Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Date of decision : 13.11.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-22212-2024;
for respondent No. 2 in CRM-M-28798-2024.
Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate with
Mr. Damanjeet Singh Batalvi, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-28798-2024 and
for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-22212-2024.
Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, two petitions filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are being disposed of as petition CRM-M-22212-2024 seeks
quashing of FIR No.26 dated 07.03.2024 registered against petitioner Om
Parkash under Section 420 IPC and Section 36(3) of the Punjab Apartment
and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') at Police Station
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 2
Division No.2, District Pathankot (Annexure P-5), and petition
CRM-M-28798-2024 seeks quashing of FIR No.31 dated 16.03.2024
registered against petitioner Rajinder Kaur under the same provisions at the
same police station (Annexure P-1), along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
these petitions are that both the aforementioned FIRs arise out of one dispute
between the same parties over one plot. Om Parkash and his brothers Harbans
Lal, Ramesh Lal and Rachhpal Singh had inherited land measuring 20 Kanals
3 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.926(8-9), 930(11-11) and 922/1(0-3),
situated in the revenue estate of village Daulatpur, District Pathankot. On
04.05.2006, Harbans Lal and Ramesh Lal sold land measuring 4 Kanals 8
Marlas to Rajinder Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur in equal shares (Annexure P-1 in
CRM-M-22212-2024). Rajinder Kaur appointed Ajay Pal Singh as her
general power of attorney on 01.10.2020. Through him, she sold her share of
44 Marlas in the form of plots vide five sale deeds executed during the years
2020 and 2021. The last of these sale deeds was executed on 23.06.2021 in
favour of her relative Rajesh Kumar, who is respondent No.2 in CRM-M-
22212-2024, for a plot measuring about 0-4¾ Marlas (Annexure P-5 in
CRM-M-28798-2024). On 06.06.2023, Om Parkash transferred land
measuring 6.25 Marlas, being his 25/676 share in Khasra No.926, to his son
Abhishek Singh through a transfer deed in blood relation (Annexure P-6 in
CRM-M-22212-2024). The boundaries given in this deed are similar to those
of the plot purchased by Rajesh Kumar.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 3
3. A dispute arose between the two sides about this plot. On
27.09.2023, Abhishek Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against
Rajesh Kumar regarding the plot measuring 6.25 Marlas (Annexure P-3 in
CRM-M-22212-2024). On 03.10.2023, Rajesh Kumar filed a suit against Om
Parkash and Abhishek Singh (Annexure P-4 in CRM-M-22212-2024). In that
suit, he has sought a declaration that he is owner in possession of the plot
measuring 0-4.75 Marlas. He has also sought a declaration that the transfer
deed dated 06.06.2023 is null and void. His case in the suit is that the
remaining share of Om Parkash in Khasra No.926 stood consumed in the
passages of the colony carved out by Om Parkash and his brothers. Both the
suits are pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Pathankot.
4. Rajesh Kumar then approached this Court through CRM-M-
58340-2023, which was disposed of on 18.12.2023 with a direction to the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, to examine his
representation and to take appropriate action, if warranted, in accordance with
law. The Tehsildar, Pathankot, inspected the spot and reported on 07.02.2024
that the boundaries of the sale deed in favour of Rajesh Kumar and those of
the transfer deed in favour of Abhishek Singh tally with each other
(Annexure P-6 in CRM-M-28798-2024). The Deputy Superintendent of
Police, City, Pathankot, initially reported on 09.02.2024 that the dispute was
civil in nature and was pending before the civil court. On objections raised by
the higher officers, the matter was examined by a Special Investigation Team,
which observed in its report dated 06.03.2024 that Om Parkash had
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 4
transferred land to his son by writing dimensions similar to those of the plot
of Rajesh Kumar. It also observed that he had not left any land for streets and
could not produce any approval for selling his land in the form of plots. On
the basis of this report and the opinion of the Deputy District Attorney
(Legal), FIR No.26 dated 07.03.2024 was registered against Om Parkash.
5. Om Parkash, on the other hand, had approached this Court
through CRM-M-8542-2024, which was disposed of on 19.02.2024 with a
direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, to decide his
representation by passing a speaking order. On enquiry, the Station House
Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Pathankot, reported on
14.03.2024 that Rajinder Kaur, through her general power of attorney, had
sold land measuring 44.06 Marlas in the form of plots during the years 2020
and 2021. As per this report, she had sold land measuring 0.06 Marla more
than her share, and the plots were sold without any approval from the
competent authority. After the opinion of the Deputy District Attorney
(Legal), FIR No.31 dated 16.03.2024 was registered against Rajinder Kaur.
6. The prayer of Om Parkash for anticipatory bail was declined by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, on 13.03.2024. He was
granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 10.04.2024 and he joined the
investigation on 24.04.2024. After investigation, the challan against him was
presented before the Illaqa Magistrate on 20.06.2026, and the case was fixed
for 15.09.2026 for framing of charge. Rajinder Kaur was granted anticipatory
bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, on 16.04.2024 and
she joined the investigation on 19.04.2024. On 02.07.2024, this Court stayed
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 5
further investigation in FIR No.31, and this interim order was extended
thereafter from time to time.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner Om Parkash has argued that the
petitioner never sold any land either to Rajinder Kaur or to Rajesh Kumar.
The petitioner had only transferred his own share recorded in the jamabandi
to his son. The dispute regarding the identity and possession of the plot is
purely civil in nature and is already pending before the civil court. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, had himself found the matter to be
civil but the FIR was later registered without dealing with his findings. The
colony was not carved out by the petitioner and no permission of the
competent authority was obtained before registration of the FIR. It is argued
that the FIR has been lodged only to pressurise the petitioner during the
pendency of the civil litigation. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to
be allowed. To buttress his arguments learned counsel has relied upon the
authorities cited as G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 and
Madan Lal and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2012(3) RCR
(Criminal) 643 .
8. Learned counsel for petitioner Rajinder Kaur has argued that the
petitioner owned 44 Marlas of land and did not sell anything beyond her
share. The area of the last plot was mentioned in the sale deed as about 0-4¾
Marlas, and the figure of 4.75 Marlas was only rounded off in the mutation.
The petitioner is neither a promoter nor an estate agent. The colony was in
fact carved out by Om Parkash and his brothers, from whom the petitioner
had purchased agricultural land in the year 2006. Nobody has suffered any
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 6
wrongful loss on account of the sale deeds executed by her. The impugned
FIR has been got registered by Om Parkash only to create pressure on the
petitioner so that he could settle his dispute with her relative Rajesh Kumar.
With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
9. Separate replies have been filed. On the strength of the same,
learned State counsel has opposed both the petitions. With regard to FIR
No.26, it is argued that the FIR was registered after a detailed enquiry made
in pursuance of the directions of this Court. During investigation, documents
from the revenue department and other departments have come on record
which show the involvement of Om Parkash in duping the complainant. The
land transferred by him to his son is a rasta as per the revenue record and the
challan has already been presented. With regard to FIR No.31, it is argued
that Rajinder Kaur sold total land measuring 44.06 Marlas in the form of
plots without seeking any approval from the competent authority.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Rajesh Kumar in CRM-M-
22212-2024 has argued that the allegations against Om Parkash are supported
by documentary material. As per the report of the Tehsildar, the boundaries
of the transfer deed dated 06.06.2023 tally with those of the sale deed dated
23.06.2021 in favour of the complainant. This raises triable questions which
require evidence and cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Since the investigation stands completed and the challan has been
presented, the petitioner can raise all his defences before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Om Parkash in CRM-M-28798-2024
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 7
has supported FIR No.31. He has argued that Rajinder Kaur sold more land
than her share in the form of plots without any approval and did not leave any
land for the streets.
11. This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable
length, besides going through the material placed on record.
12. A perusal of the record shows that the two FIRs are cross-FIRs
arising out of the same chain of transactions. The grievance of each side is
that the deed executed by the other side covers land which it claims for itself.
In both the FIRs, two kinds of allegations have been made. The first is the
allegation of cheating, which is a private grievance concerning the plot in
dispute. The second is the allegation of selling land in the form of plots
without approval, which is a matter of statutory regulation under the Act.
These two allegations stand on a different footing and are being considered
separately.
13. Coming first to the offence under Section 420 IPC, the law on
the point is no longer res integra. In Mohd. Ibrahim and others v. State of
Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
where a person executes a sale deed of a property which does not belong to
him, it is the purchaser, who is induced to part with the sale consideration,
who may complain of having been cheated. A third person claiming title to
the property, who was neither deceived nor induced to deliver any property,
may not be able to make such a complaint merely because the sale deed
affects his claim. Relying upon this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and others, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 230 : 2025
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 8
INSC 31 quashed an FIR under Section 420 IPC which was lodged during
the pendency of civil suits regarding the title of the same property. The
relevant observations are reproduced as under:-
“12. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers under the sale
deeds have not made any grievance about the sale deeds. In the
case of Mohd. Ibrahim v State of Bihar , in paragraphs 20 to 23,
this Court held thus:
“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property
claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser
under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him
by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently
induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case
the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused.
xxx xxx xxx
23. ….If a person sells a property knowing that it does not
belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased
the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may
complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of
cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under
the deed may not be able to make such complaint. "
12.1 In this case, it is impossible to understand how the
appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the act of
execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to
cause damage or harm to the 4th respondent in body, mind,
reputation or property. The appellant has not purported to
execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4th respondent. He has
not purported to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent. There
is no allegation that the appellant deceived the 4th respondent to
transfer or deliver the subject property.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 9
13. Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating
under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the
appellant. Moreover, the complaint was filed by the 4th
respondent for the first time after a time gap of two years from
the date of institution of the civil suits…….. When there was a
dispute over the title, the act of the 4th respondent of setting
in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of
the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law. "
14. Applying the abovementioned principles, the allegations in FIR
No.26 do not make out the offence of cheating against Om Parkash. Rajesh
Kumar is not a party to the transfer deed dated 06.06.2023. Om Parkash did
not make any representation to him and did not receive any property from
him. The only transferee under the deed is the son of Om Parkash, who paid
no consideration and has no grievance against his father. The deed recites the
25/676 share of Om Parkash in Khasra No.926, which stood recorded in his
name in the jamabandi for the year 2018-19 (Annexure P-2 in CRM-M-
22212-2024). Whether this share still exists at the spot or stands absorbed in
the passages of the colony and which of the two deeds would prevail, are
questions of title and possession. These are the very questions which Rajesh
Kumar himself has raised in his civil suit filed on 03.10.2023, wherein he has
sought a declaration that the transfer deed dated 06.06.2023 is null and void.
The report of the Tehsildar only shows that the boundaries of the two deeds
overlap. It does not by itself show any dishonest intention on the part of Om
Parkash. The stand of the State that the transfer was made during the
pendency of the civil suit is not borne out from the record, as the transfer
deed dated 06.06.2023 was executed before the filing of both the suits. As
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 10
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta and another
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 , the
presentation of the challan does not denude this Court of its power to quash
the proceedings, if no offence is made out.
15. The position is no different with regard to FIR No.31. Om
Parkash is not a purchaser from Rajinder Kaur. None of the five vendees of
Rajinder Kaur has made any complaint against her. Rajesh Kumar, the
vendee under the sale deed dated 23.06.2021, rather supports her. Even
otherwise, the allegation of sale of 0.06 Marla in excess of her share does not
stand scrutiny. The sale deed dated 23.06.2021 conveys 444/40000 share of
land measuring 20 Kanals in Khasra Nos.926 and 930, which comes to 0-4.44
Marlas, and 1/12 share of land measuring 0-3 Marlas in Khasra No.922/1,
which comes to 0-0.25 Marla. Thus, the land actually conveyed is 4.69
Marlas, which has been described in the deed as about 0-4¾ Marlas. When
the figure of 4.69 Marlas is taken into account, the five sale deeds of 1.68,
13.50, 12.13, 12 and 4.69 Marlas add up to exactly 44 Marlas. The alleged
excess of 0.06 Marla, therefore, arises only because the area of the last plot
was rounded off to 4.75 Marlas in the mutation, whereas the share actually
conveyed works out to 4.69 Marlas. In any case, only a vendee could have
complained about such an excess, as held in Mohd. Ibrahim's case (supra) .
16. It is also noticeable that FIR No.26 and FIR No.31 were
registered within nine days of each other, on parallel complaints made by the
two sides while their civil suits about the same plot were pending. There is no
allegation that either petitioner deceived the complainant concerned or
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 11
induced him to deliver any property. The grievance on both sides relates only
to competing claims over the same plot, which are already the subject matter
of the civil suits. As held in G. Sagar Suri's case (supra) , criminal
proceedings are not a short cut to other remedies available in law and a matter
which is essentially civil cannot be given the cloak of a criminal offence.
Taking the allegations at their face value, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC
are not made out against either of the petitioners. The case is covered by the
first category of cases laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan
Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . Continuation of the proceedings
under Section 420 IPC against either petitioner would, thus, be an abuse of
the process of the Court.
17. However, the allegation regarding the offence under the Act
stands on a different footing. It is not a private grievance of either
complainant but relates to the development of land into a colony and sale of
plots without approval. The relevant provisions of the Act read as under:-
"2(i) "colony" means an area of land not less than one
thousand square meters divided or proposed to be divided
by way of registered sale or through lease or transfer of
physical possession of plots or apartment building for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes xxx
*
2(y) "promoter" means the person, -
(a) who is the owner of land, on which a colony is developed;
xxx xxx xxx
(e) who claims to be acting as the holder of a power of
attorney from the owner of the land on which the building is
constructed or a colony is developed; xxx
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 12
*
36. Offences and penalties. - (1) Any person or promoter or his
agent registered under the Act, without reasonable cause, fails to
comply with or contravenes the provisions of sections 3, 5, 6, 9
or 15 shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a
minimum term of three years which may extend to seven years
and with minimum fine of rupees two lac, which may extend to
rupees five lac.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any promoter or estate agent who, without reasonable
excuse, fails to comply with, or contravenes, any other
provision of this Act or of any rule made there under, or does
not pay the penalty imposed upon him by the competent
authority, shall, if no other penalty is expressly provided for
the offence , be punished on conviction, with imprisonment for a
term not less than one year which may extend to three year and
with a minimum fine of rupees ten thousand which may extend
to rupees one lac.
*
38. Prosecution and composition of offences. - (1) No
prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall
be instituted except with the previous sanction of the
competent authority or any person authorised in this behalf by
the competent authority."
18. In both the FIRs, it is alleged that land comprised in Khasra
Nos.926, 930 and 922/1 was sold in the form of plots without any approval
from the competent authority and without leaving land for the streets. Prima
facie, the total land in these khasra numbers measures 20 Kanals 3 Marlas,
which is far more than one thousand square meters. Even the share of
Rajinder Kaur, measuring 44 Marlas, exceeds this limit. The owner of the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 13
land on which a colony is developed, as well as the holder of a power of
attorney from such owner, falls within the definition of a promoter. Each
petitioner blames the other side for carving out the colony. This is a disputed
question of fact which can be determined only on the basis of evidence. In
State of Punjab and others v. Inder Mohan Chopra and others, [2009] 2
S.C.R. 400 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of this Court
quashing an FIR registered under Section 36 of the Act, and held that such
questions are to be adjudicated during trial. The relevant observations are as
under:-
"11. It appears that the High Court has come to an abrupt
conclusion that the individual shares could be less than 1000
Sq.m. That is not the relevant aspect for consideration of the
issues raised. Therefore, the impugned orders of the High
Court are unsustainable and are quashed. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
cases which are to be adjudicated in trial."
19. In view of the law laid down in Inder Mohan Chopra's case
(supra) , the proceedings relating to the offence under the Act cannot be
quashed at this stage in either case. At the same time, two aspects deserve to
be noticed. Firstly, Section 36(3) of the Act applies only where no other
penalty is expressly provided, whereas a contravention of Section 5 of the
Act is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Act. The question as to the
provision actually attracted on the allegations in the FIRs is left open to be
examined in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. Secondly, Section
38(1) of the Act bars the institution of prosecution for any offence under the
Act without the previous sanction of the competent authority. Such sanction
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 14
is thus a condition precedent for the institution of prosecution. It does not bar
the registration of an FIR or its investigation, but a report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. cannot be acted upon for the offence under the Act without such
sanction. The reply filed by the State in CRM-M-22212-2024 is silent as to
whether any such sanction was obtained before presentation of the challan.
This Court, therefore, refrains from recording any finding on this aspect,
which shall be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the record.
20. In view of the above discussion, both the petitions are partly
allowed in the following terms:-
(i) In petition bearing CRM-M-22212-2024 , FIR No.26 dated
07.03.2024 registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 36(3)
of the Act at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot,
along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and all
subsequent proceedings, is quashed qua the offence under
Section 420 IPC. The learned trial Court shall proceed in the
matter in accordance with law. It shall be open to the petitioner
to raise all his pleas, including those relating to sanction, the
applicable provision and limitation, before the trial Court at the
appropriate stage.
(ii) In petition bearing CRM-M-28798-2024 , FIR No.31 dated
16.03.2024 registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 36(3)
of the Act at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot,
along with all subsequent proceedings, is quashed qua the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-22212-2024 (O&M) and one connected petition 15
offence under Section 420 IPC. The interim order dated
02.07.2024 staying further investigation stands vacated.
21. It is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the civil suits pending between
the parties or on the merits of the allegations regarding the offence under the
Act. CRM-31192-2026 in CRM-M-22212-2024, being an application seeking
stay of the proceedings before the trial Court, is disposed of as having been
rendered infructuous. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
case.
13.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.13 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document