Criminal Misc. No. 47589-M of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 47589-M of 2007 Date of decision January 28, 2008 Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G.S.Kaura, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent. RAJESH BINDAL, J. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short “the Code), the petitioner has made the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be allowed and FIR No. 426 dated 31.10. 2001 U/s 341, 353, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and U/s 4 and 5 of the Punjab Noise Pollution Control Act (The Punjab Instruments (Control of Noises) Act, 1956 ?) at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh alongwith all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.”(sic) The FIR was registered against the petitioner with the allegation that on October 30, 2001, a Jagratta was being organised in open space of Market in Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. On the complaint made by some person that a loudspeaker was being played at a high pitch, ASI reached at the spot and met organizers of the Jagtratta, namely Shri Har Narain, President and Manjit Singh, Secretary of Patel Market, Sector 15, Chandigarh where some other persons including the petitioner were also present. The FIR was registered against the petitioner alongwith other persons, which according to counsel for the petitioner is nothing else but an Criminal Misc. No. 47589-M of 2007 -2- **** abuse of process of law as even on a plain reading of the FIR, no offence as alleged therein is found to be committed. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 18727-M of 2005 ( Amar Manchanda Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh ) wherein the FIR in question against another accused namely Amar Manchanda, who was also found there at the time of Jagratta was quashed by this Court vide order dated February 28, 2007. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the FIR in question for the same incident against Amar Manchanda had already been quashed by this Court finding that he was not responsible for any of the violation as alleged in the FIR. The case of the petitioner is also on the same footing as he was also merely found to be present there at the time of Jagratta alongwith Amar Manchanda. Once on identical allegations, the FIR in question has already been quashed against other accused, in my opinion, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing else but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in in Amar Manchana's case (supra), FIR No. 426 dated October 31, 2001 registered under Sections 341, 353, 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and under Section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Instruments (Control of Noises) Act, 1956 at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. January 28, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge