CWP No. 1573 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1573 of 2010 Date of decision February 1 , 2010 Kamlesh Rani and another ....... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. J.C. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition seeks for an intervention through a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution that a complaint registered by the Police as FIR refers to an occurrence of the year 2008 but does not set out any vital details and further that the information which is said to have been received on 5.9.2009 has been registered as FIR for alleged occurrence of the year 2008. The complaint that the FIR makes reference to is an allegation to the effect that the petitioner had received Rs.90,000/- and gave receipt thereof and he has not repaid the amount. There are general averments in the complaint that several demands had been made for return of the money and the petitioner has not repaid the payments in spite of such demand. On a reading of the copy of FIR, it is seen that the complaint is registered for an alleged occurrence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and others reported in AIR 1982 SC 949 that an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR. According to him this power could be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reference to this judgment has no value for the petitioner's averments, since the complaint does make out a case under CWP No. 1573 of 2010 2 Sections 406 and 420 IPC but it is a different issue whether such a complaint is true. It is invariably a matter that will be revealed only at the time further of investigation or at the trial. 2. The appropriate remedy may be by quashing of FIR by the resort to proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if at all sustainable. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution does not lie for complaint that makes out a case of a borrower on a promise to return money and the unwillingness on the part of the borrower to repay it with a definite intent to commit breach of contract. 3. None of these observations which I have made shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner will have an appropriate alternate remedy under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code itself and not by means under Article 226 of the Constitution. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 1 , 2010 archana