Criminal Misc. No. M-4761 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-4761 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.8.2009 Amarjit Singh Bhatti .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. T. N. Sarup, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Darling Behl, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the petition is for quashing of FIR No. 169 dated 6.9.2007, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station, City Batala. The FIR in question was registered against the petitioner by the bank with the allegations that he had raised loan by mortgaging his land. However, in spite of the fact that the loan was not cleared, the mortgaged land was fraudulently sold to third party in connivance with the revenue authorities. After the FIR was registered and the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender, he approached the bank, cleared the loan amount and prayed for quashing of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the loan amount was raised by the petitioner way back in the year 1993, because of his poor financial health, he could not repay the same. In 2006, he went to Canada on a sponsorship of his relative, as it was difficult for him to make his both ends meet in India. After he came to know that FIR had been registered against him and he is in the process of being declared Proclaimed Offender in the aforesaid case, he immediately informed the court about his being in Canada and also settled the account with the bank. As the amount due to the bank has already been paid, the cause of action for registration of FIR does not survive and accordingly the same may be quashed, otherwise, the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that the petitioner has cleared the loan amount along with interest. Considering this fact, Criminal Misc. No. M-4761 of 2009 [2] the bank has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Though in the present case, counsel for the bank-complainant stated before the court that the amount of loan raised by the petitioner having been repaid along with interest, the bank is no more interested in pursuing the FIR, but still considering the allegations against the petitioner where he had raised the loan by mortgaging his land way back in the year 1993 and sold the mortgaged property in connivance with the revenue authorities, I do not consider this to be a fit case for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The plea of the petitioner that he was not financially in good health lacks bonafide. In case, he was not in good financial health, he could very well repay the loan amount which was quite small after selling his land, but the amount recovered from the sale of land was also pocketed by him. At the time of arguments, it was stated that one son of the petitioner was in Australia and the petitioner migrated to Canada with family in 2006. If the petitioner had sources to migrate to Canada with his family, he should have first thought of clearing the loan of the bank, for which even he had mortgaged his land and which to his knowledge had been sold before the loan was cleared. The FIR was registered only on 6.9.2007. Even after going to Canada, the petitioner had ample time to repay the loan. He took steps to repay the loan of the bank only after he was declared Proclaimed Offender by the court on 16.7.2008. The amount was immediately paid on 21.7.2008. Seeing the conduct of the petitioner and also that revenue officials are also involved in the scheme of fraud, I do not find any reason to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing said above will effect the merits of the case. The same shall be considered by the learned court below at the time of decision on the basis of evidence produced on record. The petitioner will also not be debarred from raising all the legal issues raised in the present petition before the learned court below at the appropriate stage during trial. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.8.2009 mk