Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
CRR-2376
2376-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.02.2026
Om Parkash ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana .
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)
The instant revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa
whereby the appeal preferred the by the respondents against the judgment of
conviction dated 02.09.2021 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2021 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ellenabad in criminal complaint
bearing CIS No.COMI-63-2015
No.COMI titled ‘Om Parkash Vs. Om Parkash and
others ‘had been allowed and the respondents were acquitted of the charge
framed against them.
2. Briefly stated, the present complaint was instituted by Om
Parkash, who stated that his father was suffering from mental instability and
that the respondents-accused,
respondents taking undue advantage of his father’s mental
incapacity, induced him to execute an agreement to sell in respect of 12
Kanals of agricultural land, upon which a dhani had been constructed by the
complainant. Upon learning of the said agreement, the complainant
instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against Kashmiri Lal, which is
stated to be pending before the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
(Senior Division), Ellenabad. It is further alleged that on 29.04.2014,
accused Om Parkash son of Modan Ram, Anil Kumar son of Om Parkash,
and Jaswant @ Lala Patwari son of Modan Ram visited the dhani and
threatened the complainant to vacate the premises along with his family,
asserting that they had purchased the land and warning that failure to do so
would result in dire consequences, including elimination. On account
thereof, Manoj Kumar, brother of the complainant, approached the Kariwala
Police Post to lodge a complaint. However, it is alleged that when he
reached the police post, the accused were already present and, in the
presence of police officials, abused him, snatched his complaint, and tore it
into pieces. Though a subsequent complaint was allegedly submitted to
senior police authorities, no action was stated to have been taken. The
complainant further alleges that on 12.05.2014 at about 8:00-8:30 P.M., all
the accused arrived at the dhani in two tractors one Sonalika and one Swaraj
855armed with lathis and dandas. Upon reaching the spot, accused Anil
Kumar and Jaswant @ Lala Patwari raised a lalkara, calling upon the
complainant and his family to come out. When the complainant and his
family members attempted to pacify them on the ground that a civil suit was
pending, the accused allegedly became aggressive. It is specifically stated
that Jaswant @ Lala Patwari inflicted a lathi blow below the left knee and on
the back of the right leg of the complainant. Accused Om Parkash is stated
to have struck a lathi blow on the complainant’s left knee, while accused
Anil Kumar dealt lathi blows on his right elbow, right leg, and right thigh.
When Manoj Kumar intervened to rescue his brother, he too was assaulted
with lathi and danda blows, resulting in injuries to his elbow, lower back,
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
left shoulder, right knee, left index finger, right little finger, and right knee.
On raising alarm, the complainant’s mother, Nirmala Devi, and Mamta @
Saroj, wife of Manoj Kumar, reached the spot and intervened, whereupon
the accused fled. Before leaving, they are stated to have threatened to
eliminate the complainant and his family at the next available opportunity.
Thereafter, Mangat Ram arranged a vehicle and the complainant was taken
to CHC Rania, from where he was referred to General Hospital, Sirsa. An X-
ray examination was conducted, which revealed a fracture in the
complainant’s left leg. It is further alleged that the police conducted only a
perfunctory investigation and, in collusion with the accused, initiated
proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. instead of registering an
appropriate case, thereby compelling the complainant to institute the present
complaint. A report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was thereafter sought, and
upon receipt of the same, the learned Court proceeded in accordance with
law.
3. On completion of the preliminary evidence, the respondent-
accused were summoned vide order dated 14.05.2019 to face trial for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 & 325 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint was dismissed against
accused No.4 to 6 i.e. Mesar Devi wife of Om Parkash, Bimla wife of
Jaswant @ Lala Patwari and Surjeet son of Jaswant @ Lala Patwari under
Section 203 Cr.P.C.
In pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined as many as
six witnesses including the doctor who had conducted the X-ray examination
and Manoj Kumar, who supported the version of the complainant on all
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
material particulars. The charge was thereafter framed against the
respondent-accused persons vide 27.01.2020 for commission of offences
under Sections 323 & 325 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The defence counsel suffered a statement on 27.01.2020 to the
effect that he wanted to cross-examine only the private witnesses. Later, vide
statement dated 03.02.2020, counsel stated that he does not want to further
cross-examine the private respondents namely, Mamta-PW3 and Nirmala
Devi-PW4 and petitioner-Om Parkash was cross-examined further. The
other injured private witness, namely, Manoj Kumar-PW2 did not appear in
evidence. The same was thus closed.
5. The incriminating evidence was put to the respondent-accused
and their statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused
pleaded false implication and denied the allegations. They tendered the
following documents in their support:-
a. Ex.D1 Certified copy of plaint of civil suit titled Manoj
Kumar and another Vs. Kashmiri Lal and Ors.
b. Ex.D2 Certified copy of written statement of defendant
No.1 in civil suit titled Manoj Kumar and another Vs.
Kashmiri Lal and Ors.
c. Ex.D3 Certified copy of order dated 08.09.2014 on stay
application passed in civil suit titled Manoj Kumar and
another Vs. Kashmiri Lal and Ors.
d. Ex.D4 Certified copy of order dated 25.04.2016 for
withdrawing the civil suit titled Manoj Kumar and
another Vs. Kashmiri Lal and Ors.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
e. Ex.D5 Certified copy of sale deed No.3638 dated
19.12.2013.
f. Ex.D6 Certified copy of sale deed No.3537 dated
19.12.2014.
6. On hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ellenabad vide order dated 02.09.2021 convicted the
accused for commission of offence under Section 323 and 325 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Vide order of sentence dated
06.09.2021, the respondents-accused were sentenced as under:
Section(s) Punishment
IPC 323/34 3 month simple imprisonment alengwith fine of Rs.500/-each, in case
of non-payment of fine, the convicts shall further undergo simple
imprisonment of 5 days.
325/34 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- each, in
case of non-payment of fine, the convicts shall further undergo simple
imprisonment of 10 days.
7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, an appeal was preferred by the respondents-accused to the Court of
Sessions. The matter was argued at length before the Court of Sessions and
vide judgment dated 11.11.2021, the Sessions Judge, Sirsa allowed the said
appeal and acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them and
set aside the judgment of conviction of 02.09.2021 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ellenabad.
8. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
contended that the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, fell into error in failing to
properly appreciate the material available on record. It is submitted that
sufficient evidence had been adduced to demonstrate that the property in
question stood recorded in the name of the petitioner’s brother and that the
respondents were, in fact, the aggressors seeking to assert unlawful control
over the land. It is contended that the nature and extent of injuries sustained
by the petitioner, including the fracture in his left leg, were proved through
medical evidence and the testimony of the official witnesses, as well as the
documentary evidence placed on record, was neither challenged nor rebutted
by the respondents. It is contended that in such circumstances once the
injuries stood established and the petitioner’s side was shown to be in
ownership and possession of the property, they were legally entitled to
protect the same. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge,
Sirsa, suffers from a patent legal infirmity. Learned counsel has further
drawn attention to the Jamabandi for the year 2011-12, which reflects the
ownership of Manoj Kumar, son of Kashmiri Lal, resident of Village Bani,
Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, who is the brother of the petitioner. It is also
pointed out that the Civil Court had earlier granted an order of injunction
restraining Kashmiri Lal and others from alienating the property and that an
interim injunction against alienation was operating at the relevant time.
10. Upon being confronted with the record, learned counsel for the
petitioner fairly concedes that the alleged order granting interim injunction
has not been exhibited in evidence. He further also does not dispute that the
application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
08.09.2014 (Exh. P-23).
11. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and
have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition as
well as the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa.
12. Before proceeding further into the matter, it is appropriate to
make a reference to the reasons assigned by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa while
acquitting the respondents-accused persons. The operative part of the
judgment is extracted as under:
“14. After hearing the rival submissions, I have given my
thoughtful consideration to the same. It is an admitted fact that
Kashmiri Lal sold his land to Mesar Devi wife of Om Parkash
son of Modan Lal, vide sale deeds Ex.D5 & Ex.D6. As per the
said sale deeds, Shri Kashmiri Lal handed over the physical
possession of the land to the purchaser. There is nothing on
record to show that wife & sons of Kashmiri Lal were in
possession of the said agricultural land, or the dhani as alleged
in the complaint. Simply because, Manoj Kumar & Om Parkash
challenged the sale deed executed by their father Kashmiri Lal
does not point towards the direction that they are in possession
of the suit land, seeing the fact that their application under
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. vide Ex.D3 and even their father
Kashmiri Lal filed contested written statement against his sons
in the said suit vide Ex.D2. Moreover, the said civil suit is
already withdrawn vide Ex.D4. All these facts point towards the
direction that present complainant Om Parkash son of Kashmiri
and his brother Manoj Kumar & other family members were not
in possession and they are in fact the aggressor party, who
tress-passed into the land of the purchaser Mesar Devi.
Moreover, the possession of an agricultural land goes with the
title, which is with Mesar Devi. Every land owner has a right ofSUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)private defence against any tress-passer, who tries to oust him
from the same. There is nothing on record that present
appellants/accused persons exceeded their right of private
defence while exercising the same against the complainant
party, seeing the fact that Om Parkash son of Modan Ram also
sustained injuries in the said incident. Moreover, police
investigation in case FIR No.186 of 2014, P.S. Rania vide
police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. shows that present
complainant Om Parkash son of Kashmiri Lal along with his
brother Manoj Kumar are charge-sheeted in the case and
present appellants were found innocent during police
investigation. Thus, I am fully satisfied with all the submissions
made by Ld. Counsel for appellants/accused persons, as
mentioned in para no.12 above.
15. In sequel to my above discussion, the present criminal
appeal is hereby allowed and all the appellants/accused
persons are hereby acquitted from the charges framed against
them by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 02.09.2021. The bail bonds submitted by
appellants/accused persons are hereby retained under Section
437-A Cr.P.C. Trial Court record along with copy of this
judgment be sent back. File be consigned to the record room.”
13. The specific case of the petitioner is to the effect that he was a
co-owner in joint possession of the agricultural land in question and that
Kashmiri Lal had been restrained from alienating the land in favour of the
respondents-accused as on the date of the alleged occurrence. However, a
perusal of the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, reveals that
Kashmiri Lal, the father of the petitioner, had executed sale deeds Exh. D5
and Exh. D6 dated 19.12.2013 and 19.12.2014 respectively, in favour of
Mesar Devi, wife of Om Parkash (son of Modan Ram). The recitals
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
9
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
contained in the said sale deeds specifically record that physical possession
of the land had been delivered to the vendee at the time of execution.
Notwithstanding the emphatic submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that he continued to be in cultivating possession of the agricultural
land and the dhani constructed thereon, no documentary evidence has been
brought on record to substantiate such a claim. There is also no reference to
any material to demonstrate his actual cultivating possession or control over
the property, as asserted. The mere institution of a declaratory suit by the
petitioner along with his brother Manoj Kumar, coupled with an order
restraining their father from alienating the suit land, does not, by itself, lead
to an inference that the petitioner was in possession of the property. Nor can
such an order be construed as a direction maintaining status quo with respect
to possession, in the absence of specific findings to that effect.
14. It is further evident that the petitioner failed to substantiate his
claim against his father, particularly in view of the fact that the application
filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
stood dismissed. Kashmiri Lal had filed a detailed written statement in the
civil proceedings, which has been exhibited as Exh. D2. The said civil suit
was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner and his brother Manoj Kumar, as
reflected in Exh. D4.These circumstances lend support to the conclusion that
the petitioner and his brother were not in possession of the land at the
relevant time and that possession had already been delivered to the
respondents-accused pursuant to the registered sale deeds. It was further
noticed that the incident in question occurred on agricultural land and, prima
facie, the petitioner had entered upon the said land without any subsisting
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
10
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
legal right. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was held to be a
trespasser and the initial aggressor. Consequently, the respondents-accused
were held entitled to invoke the right of private defence to protect their
property. The injury sustained by the petitioner has been classified under
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was not found to be indicative of
an excessive use of force beyond what was necessary in the circumstances.
15. It is a well-settled principle under the Indian Penal Code that a
person is entitled to protect his possession of property by using such force as
is reasonably necessary for that purpose. The right of private defence of
property, even to the extent of causing bodily harm, is statutorily recognized
under Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which reads as under:
“104. Right of private defence of property against theft,
mischief or criminal trespass, not extending to causing
death.–
The right of private defence of property against theft, mischief
or criminal trespass does not extend to the voluntary causing of
death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in
section 99, to the voluntary causing of any harm other than
death.”
16. Counsel for the petitioner has also failed to refer to any such
documents on the basis whereof his actual possession and ownership over
the land could be established. In the absence of such evidence, the mere fact
that the petitioner sustained injuries in the course of the incident cannot, by
itself, form the basis for recording a conviction. The material on record
rather indicates that the respondents-accused claim title and possession by
virtue of a duly registered sale deeds executed in their favour, coupled with
delivery of possession by Kashmiri Lal, the father of the petitioner. In such
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
11
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
circumstances, the presumption of lawful possession in their favour cannot
be lightly displaced. It is also an admitted position that the civil suit
instituted by the petitioner seeking to restrain his father from alienating the
suit property was ultimately withdrawn. Furthermore, the application for
interim relief was declined by the competent Civil Court on 19.12.2014.
These factors further weaken the petitioner’s claim of subsisting legal right
or possession over the property at the relevant time.
17. It is further borne out from the record that Manoj Kumar, the
brother of the petitioner and an injured eye-witness to the occurrence,
entered the witness box and was subjected to cross-examination. The tenor
of his testimony, when tested in cross-examination, materially affects its
credibility and does not inspire confidence to the extent sought to be
projected by the petitioner. Significantly, Kashmiri Lal did not step into the
witness box to support or corroborate the petitioner’s claim. On the contrary,
he had filed a contested written statement in the civil proceedings opposing
the stand taken by the petitioner. This circumstance assumes relevance in
assessing the rival claims relating to possession and title. Moreover, the
registered sale deeds on record clearly recite that physical possession of the
land had been delivered by Kashmiri Lal in favour of the respondents. The
recitals therein, coupled with the absence of any cogent evidence to the
contrary, indicate that the respondents were in settled possession of the
property pursuant to the execution of the said instruments.
18. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not sit
as a Court of second appeal so as to undertake a fresh re-appreciation of the
entire evidence on record. The scope of interference in revision is
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
12
236 CRR-2376-2022 (O&M)
circumscribed and narrow. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise
of its revisional powers, would interfere only where the impugned judgment
is shown to suffer from patent perversity, manifest illegality, material
impropriety, or a gross misappreciation of evidence resulting in miscarriage
of justice. In the absence of such infirmities, the revisional Court would
refrain from substituting its own view merely because another interpretation
of the evidence may be possible.
19. No such circumstance or evidence has been referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument, hence, finding
no inconsistency, illegality, perversity or impropriety, the judgment under
challenge, the present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
10.02.2026 JUDGE
Sumit Gusain
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2026.02.18 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
