1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 5020-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.10.2009 *** Mohinder Pal Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for respondent No.2. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 106 dated 6.5.2007, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur and consequent proceedings taken therein. The impugned FIR has been got registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioners and four others with the allegations that they took an amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs from him for sending his son abroad. But instead of that his son was send to some unknown place and his amount was also not returned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book carefully. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the instant petition in respect of petitioner No.3 and the petition to his extent stands dismissed being not pressed. So far as petitioner No.4 is concerned, as per reply filed by the State, she has been found innocent during investigation and has been placed in column No.2 in the challan, hence the present petition to her extent stands dismissed being infructuous. Coming to the case of petitioners No.1 and 2, it is apt to 2 mention here that initially the complainant moved an application before the police in relation to the same occurrence vide application dated 29.9.2005 (Annexure P-1), which on enquiry by the police was ordered to be filed as per report Annexure P-2, since neither the amount was proved to be accepted and on the ground that the civil suit for recovery of money is pending. In that complaint, the complainant raised the grouse in respect of Gurvinderpal Singh (petitioner No.3) and other persons namely Dinesh Sharma, Saraf and Aslam, but nothing was attributed to petitioners No.1 and 2 in the alleged commission of offence. It may be mention here that complainant is real brother-in-law (Jija) of petitioners No.1 and 2. If he had any grouse against them, he must have named them in the application dated 29.9.2005. But their names figured for the first time only when the impugned FIR was got registered by him on 6.5.2007 and no explanation is forthcoming in this regard. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the continuance of prosecution against petitioners No.1 and 2 on exaggerated allegations, if permitted, amounts to abuse of process of Court. In the light of discussion made above, the instant petition is allowed qua petitioners No.1 and 2. The impugned FIR and consequent proceedings, to their extent, stands quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 26,2009 Jiten