IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.21819 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 27, 2008 Karaj Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & another ...Respondents 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.Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.428 dated 14.12.2006, registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the FIR would constitute civil liability which is being cloaked as a criminal proceedings and hence the prayer for quashing the FIR. Criminal Misc.-M No.21819 of 2008 :2: The petitioner, who is a general power of attorney holder of the complainant, had sold a plot measuring 100 sq.yards on the basis of this power of attorney in his favour. The complainant had lodged the FIR against the petitioner with the allegation that he is close friend of her son and so was being treated almost like a son. The complainant, being a heart patient, had given this power of attorney to the petitioner as she was unable to look after the plot standing in her name. She claims that power of attorney was given only for looking after the plot with an understanding that the petitioner would not sell or mortgage the same. The complainant had come to know and so had filed the complaint that the petitioner had sold her plot and had misappropriated the sale consideration. Accordingly, the FIR was filed. Mr.Hemant Saini appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner cannot be saddled with criminal liability as concededly complainant had given him the power of attorney on the basis of which he had sold the plot. That may be so, but if this power of attorney was given on some understanding that the petitioner would not sell the plot or at any rate he would pass on the sale consideration to the complainant after the sale, then it may give rise to some criminal liability. All these matters would be appropriately considered by the trial court and it would not be proper for this court to quash the FIR only on this ground as urged in the petition. The present petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 27, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE