Crl.M.No.M-9139 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-9139 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2010 Ram Pal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Hooda, Advocate and Mr.KDS Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.446, dated 21.7.2006, under Sections 419/ 420/ 423/ 465/ 467/ 468/ 469/ 471/ 447/ 506/ 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, on the ground that no loss has been caused to the complainant by the donation of land vide the document, i.e., the Donation Deed which is stated to have been registered by putting photograph of the wrong person on it as the share of the persons who donated the unpartitioned land is within their own share and, hence, the same cannot be termed as a fraudulent deed registered in favour of the trust. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Earlier a similar petition for quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the present petitioner, i.e., Crl.M.No.M-74569 of 2006 and the same was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide detailed order dated 26.8.2008. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is at the same stage at which it was when order dated 26.8.2008 was passed by this Court. Challan had already been presented. The case was fixed for framing of charge before the trial Court and since then no Crl.M.No.M-9139 of 2010 (O&M) -2- progress of the trial has been made and the case is still at the stage of charge despite the fact that similar petition for quashing was dismissed. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that second petition for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not barred. He has placed reliance upon Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh and others AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1002. He has also argued that the present complainant is having no locus standi to file the complaint. On this point he has also placed reliance upon Md.Ibrahim & others v. State of Bihar and anr. 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 369. However, as already discussed above all the pleas which have been taken in the present petition were already taken by the petitioner in the previous petition as well. Case is at the same stage at which it was then, when order dated 26.8.2008 was passed by this Court. The said order has attained finality as the same has not been challenged on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, in view of these facts, the second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing on the same facts is not maintainable. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge