Criminal Misc. No. M-31226 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-31226 of 2008 Date of decision : 06.08.2010 Shamar Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 190 dated 19.11.2008 registered against the petitioners under Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Mallanwala, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that no role is attributed to the petitioners in the entire FIR. According to him, the dispute is of civil in nature and thus FIR being just a mean to harass the petitioners, deserves to be quashed. He has further referred to report of Kanungo dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) to contend that in fact no land was transferred by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of his son Nasib Singh (petitioner No. 2). Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR. He submits that petitioners came before this court by way of present petition at the stage of investigation. According to him, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. Criminal Misc. No. M-31226 of 2008 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the FIR shows that it has been specifically stated by the complainant that petitioner No. 1 transferred the land in favour of his son (petitioner No. 2) in order to ensure that complainant could not get back his money from the petitioner No. 1 (Shamar Singh). The complainant has alleged that petitioner No. 1 acted in connivance with petitioner No. 2. In view of allegations contained in the FIR it is not possible for this court to come to a conclusion at this stage that the same are totally false. As regards the report of Kanungo with regard to transfer of land, a finding regarding its validity or otherwise cannot be given by this court in its inherent jurisdiction. The matter can only be decided by the trial court after evidence is led before it. In view of above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and trial court shall consider the material and evidence as adduced before it in accordance with law. August 06, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE