IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12137 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.12.2011. Paramjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. AG, Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition, quashing of First Information Report No.40 dated February 3rd, 2010 under Sections 379, 411 and 473 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S, Nagar, Mohali is sought on the grounds that, (i) petitioner is tenant of Harpal Singh-respondent No.2-complainant; (ii) an inquiry was conducted by Vigilance Department; (iii) Vigilance Department vide its report (Annexure P-2) found that false case was registered against the petitioner and; (iv) Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance Department, Punjab wrote a letter (Annexure P-3) to Senior Superintendent of Police, Police Station S.A.S Nagar that departmental action be taken against Atul Soni, Station House Officer, Police Station Mataur who in connivance with Harpal Singh registered false case against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner stole his car on January 30th, 2010 while it was parked outside his house. 2. It has been further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that after arrest of the petitioner, complainant forced him to vacate the premises which he had to do under compulsion. 3. From the story of the prosecution and the inquiry conducted by Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance Department, it appears that a false case was got registered by Criminal Misc. No. M-12137 of 2011 (2) Harpal Singh-landlord against his tenant Paramjit Singh in order to get the premises vacated. Otherwise, it does not appeal to common sense that a tenant will steal a car of his landlord parked outside. Not only that, as per the story he was apprehended by the Police when he was coming back to his house which again falsifies the story because had he been a thief, question of his returning to the house in the stolen car would not have arisen. The facts and circumstances unequivocally make it a case of quashing the FIR which this Court does. Resultantly, the petition is accepted. Consequently, the FIR No.40 dated February 3rd, 2010 under Sections 379, 411 and 473 IPC, Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S, Nagar, Mohali and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 13.12.2011. SN