IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.35994 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Parminder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner claims that he is a car mechanic and was running a shop in front of his house at his village. The whole case set up by the petitioner is that one day, he was working at his shop in the evening, when a police party consisting of three persons and one lady police employee came to his shop and enquired about his name. When the petitioner disclosed his identity, they asked about the vehicle of his relative Surjit Singh. The petitioner pointed out to a Zen car parked in the court-yard of the house. The wife of Surjit Singh was then asked to identify the vehicle. The police officials took the petitioner as well as the Zen Car and told his father that he could come to Bathinda. When the father of the petitioner could not come to know about the whereabouts of the petitioner, he lodged a complaint leading to registration of an FIR on 16.4.2011, copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. The father of the petitioner has narrated the incident of picking up of Parminder Singh, petitioner, as has been disclosed above. Subsequently, the matter Criminal Misc.-M No.35994 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : was covered by the press and as per the petitioner, this has infuriated the police leading to registration of an FIR, Annexure P-1, against him. Some recovery of number plates has also been effected from him. Later on, the petitioner has also been involved in another FIR, Annexure P-2, which has led to recovery of some stolen vehicle. Counsel for the petitioner prays that the FIRs are outcome of the complaint, which, the father of the petitioner had made and as such are counter-blast. Counsel not only prays for quashing of these FIRs but seek direction that investigation be ordered in this case by some independent agency. In view of the material collected during investigation, which includes recovery of some stolen vehicles, no case for quashing of FIRs is made out. The petitioner is an accused in the FIRs. He has to prove his innocence before the Court. No case for quashing the FIRs or directing investigation by any other agency is made out. Dismissed. November 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE