Criminal Misc. No. M-15412 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15412 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.12.2010 Kulwant Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 125 dated 02.05.2006 registered under Sections 448, 380 & 506 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. The FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that he had purchased Flat No. 835 MIG Housing Board Colony Scheme No. 20-B through Bhupinder Kaur Dawar w/o Sarabjit Singh Dawar resident of B-73 Ranjit Avenue Amritsar and paid Rs. 1.00 lac vide cheque and remaining amount of Rs. 3,25,508/- was paid to PUDA in installments. Resultantly PUDA on 18.02.2004, allotted the flat in the name of the complainant vide letter no. AA/A/1124. Before this Bhupinder Kaur had given possession of the flat on 09.07.2002 to the petitioner. On the same date complainant placed two folding beds and two chairs in the house aforementioned and Criminal Misc. No. M-15412 of 2009 2 locked it. However, when the complainant inspected the flat on 24.04.2006 he found that locks had been broken and possession thereof was taken illegally by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the perusal of the FIR no offence is made out. This apart, he has referred to interim order dated 09.01.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar to contend that petitioners have prima facie good case in their favour. Learned State counsel has pointed out that trial of the case is in progress and four prosecution witnesses have already been examined and only one prosecution witness i.e. the investigating officer remains to be examined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that during the pendency of this case, trial has made some progress. In view of allegations levelled in the FIR, the contention of counsel for the petitioners that no offence is made out is without any merit. The pleas raised before this court are in the nature of defence which can be gone into by the trial court after entire evidence is led before it. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere in the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of the present FIR. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. December 17, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE