IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.7187-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 TEK RAM ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.JS Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.202 dated 14.12.2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Israna, District Panipat (Annexure P-5). It seems that Jamabandi for the year 2000-01 was used for transfer of ownership by way of relinquishment deed. It was not disclosed that certain entries had been changed by way of Farad Badr. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is merely the brother of Chattar Singh and, therefore, cannot be said to be the beneficiary. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that during investigation statements have been recorded under Section 161, Criminal Misc.7187-M of 2008 2 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Jamabandi that was used by Chattar Singh was, in fact, obtained by the petitioner from the revenue authorities and, therefore, the petitioner is linked with the incident/transaction. It would be a matter of investigation and, subsequently, trial to see as to whether the petitioner had any intention to help his brother or not. In this regard reference has been made to paras 10 and 13 of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 through Shri M.S.Sheoran, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Panipat. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The investigation is still underway and has not been concluded. The case of the petitioner cannot be accepted on the basis of affidavit itself in these proceedings under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. This court, at this stage, cannot hold that the petitioner is innocent, particularly when material has come on the record to indicate that the revenue record procured by the petitioner had been used in the commission of offence. The statutory functions of the Investigating Agency cannot be thwarted and interfered with, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further is that the dispute between father-Chattar Singh and his son, and the wrong entries made by the Patwari, cannot be used against the petitioner. This aspect would also be considered by the Investigating Agency and is beyond the scope of this Court to consider under Section Criminal Misc.7187-M of 2008 3 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 3, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE