Criminal Misc. No. M-14199 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14199 of 2008 Date of decision:- 30.5.2008 Sunder Lal Maloo ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.R.K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 54 dated 31.1.2008 registered under Sections 420/467/464/506/120-B IPC at Police Station DLF, Sector-29, Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR no case is made out against the petitioner. The dispute in the present case is civil in nature. Accordingly, the FIR in question against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. However, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner first approached this Court with the prayer for anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. No. M-7695 of 2008. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, the same was dismissed on 3.4.2008. The facts noticed therein are extracted below: Criminal Misc. No. M-14199 of 2008 2 “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially provisional registration number is allotted to any member and after the completion of the formalities and the payment of the entire amount, the number is made permanent. At the first instance, provisional membership No. 021 (temporary) was allotted to one Ram Niwas Gupta who had resigned from the membership on 28.7.1998. Thereafter, on 19.8.2000, this serial number was allotted to Kishan Prasad, his membership was confirmed but still he resigned from the membership and, thereafter, this number was allotted to the complainant on 2.5.2003. The number could not be made permanent as the complainant had failed to complete the formalities and deposit the balance amount. However, the record produced before this Court shows that the name of the complainant finds mentioned at Sr. No. 141 of the list of members and his membership was shown to be terminated. At serial number 147, new member in the names of Manisha and Sanjay Sachaney were inducted at provisional membership No. 021 on 31.5.2004 and in fact, they had been allotted flat bearing no. C-101 in the draw of lot held on 1.6.2006. The complainant though stated to have not completed the formalities and deposited all the installments of the flat, but still there is noting on record to show that any notice was issued prior to the date of Criminal Misc. No. M-14199 of 2008 3 draw of lots. How his temporary membership was cancelled before allotting the same to Manisha and Sanjay Sohaney is not borne out from the record. The notices which have been placed on record are dated 18.12.2006 and 30.12.2006, requiring the complainant to comply with the formalities within 15 days and make the payment otherwise the Society will be constrained to cancel the provisional allotment/membership No. 021 whereas, the facts shows that his membership in fact has already been cancelled and even the flat had also been allotted to a new member inducted at Serial No. 147 in the draw of lots held on 1.6.2006 before even a notice was issued to the complainant. It is not disputed that total number of 50 flats was made by the Society and all of them were allotted in the draw of lots on 1.6.2006 and on 18.12.2006, when notice was issued to the complainant to complete the formalities and deposit over due amount, no flat was available with the Society which shall be allotted to the complainant.” Thereafter again the petitioner approached this Court by filing a fresh anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-11444 of 2008, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with the submission that the petitioner is intending to settle the dispute with the complainant. The order passed therein on 8.5.2008 is extracted below: “After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel Criminal Misc. No. M-14199 of 2008 4 for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition as he intends to settle the dispute with the complainant. Dismissed as withdrawn.” The petitioner has neither surrendered till date nor joined investigation and is seeking quashing of FIR. When this Court even did not find the case of the petitioner to be fit for grant of anticipatory bail, no case for quashing of the FIR can possibly be made out at this stage. Dismissed. May 30, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE