CRM No. M-9466 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-9466 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.03.2010 Arvind Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Baljeet Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. P.K. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the complaint dated 30.09.1999 bearing No.332 of 2000 moved under Sections 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 423, 465 and 468 IPC qua the petitioner, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. While praying for quashing of the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Muzzafar Nagar (U.P), who has been falsely involved in the abovesaid complaint filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against respondent CRM No. M-9466 of 2010 2 No.3, as well as, against the petitioner although the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the sale deed in dispute except to the extent that the petitioner was just an attesting witness to the said sale deed as respondent No.3 is the wife of the brother of the wife of the petitioner and thus by virtue of their close relations, the petitioner knew respondent No.3 but had no link whatsoever in the matter of some alleged partnership with respondent No.3. It was further submitted that this fact was also noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide Order dated 11.02.2010 while granting bail to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the petition. There are specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR. As per the FIR, the petitioner assured the complainant as regard to good title of the plot being related to accused No.1. The present petitioner was stated to be the master mind behind the fraudulent act of the accused. It was further mentioned that the complainant came to know that the present petitioner was a partner of accused No.1 in the cheating case and when he did not receive his share of the money, then to save himself, he wrote a letter to the DLF Company to delete his name as witness. It is further stated that the petitioner along with other accused, fraudulently received the sale consideration and huge sum of amount, over and above, by way of expenses which has caused loss of Rs.50 lacs to the complainant. It is a well settled proposition of law that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised carefully and with great caution. The same should be exercised only if it is the misuse of the process of law or in order to meet the ends of justice or in case, no offence is made out even after reading of the complaint or the allegation in the FIR. Neither of the above ingredients are satisfied. There are specific allegations in the FIR which need to be probed. The discretionary power CRM No. M-9466 of 2010 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised in the facts of the present case and the investigation cannot be scuttled at this stage. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 30.03.2010 JUDGE gurpreet