Crl. Misc. No. M-4897 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-4897 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.9.2011. Om Parkash ........Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the FIR No. 172 dated 14.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 199, 200 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana, order dated 03.12.2007 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) and order dated 12.1.2010 (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that wrong declaration had been given by the petitioner regarding death of his wife on 18.4.2006. However, before the registration of the FIR on 14.8.2006, the petitioner had already written letter dated 08.7.2006 to the District Education Officer, Rohtak that Crl. Misc. No. M-4897 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - his wife had not died. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that once the petitioner had given false information, while submitting his pension papers, the offence under Sections 199, 200 IPC was complete. Hence, the criminal proceedings were liable to continue against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner at the time of submission of his pension papers gave declaration that his wife-complainant Phula Devi had died. However, later on, he wrote a letter to the District Education Officer, Rohtak that his wife had not died. After his death, his wife would have the right to get family pension. Although, the petitioner had corrected his mistake but the offence under the Act was complete when the petitioner furnished wrong declaration to the competent authority at the time of submission of his papers. In these circumstances, it would not be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 02, 2011 Gurpreet