CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27959 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 31, 2008 Harbhajan Singh Kahlon and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners are apparently in tearing hurry to seek quashing of the FIR registered against them under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They have yet not secured their liberty and have not made any approach for grant of bail or stay of their arrest in any manner. FIR is dated 13.10.2008 and within 10 days, they have filed this petition for quashing of this FIR. Obviously, aim is to deny investigation of the allegations made in the FIR by the police. As per the allegations made in the FIR, CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27959 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: petitioners had purchased some mushtarka land, which had not been mutated either in their names or in the names of the persons, who had sold this land to the petitioners. The record would show that there was some civil litigation filed by the petitioners in which they remained unsuccessful. Their appeal was also dismissed, which they impugned by filing R.S.A. No.281 of 2004 before this Court. This R.S.A. was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that the same had been rendered infructuous as Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, had restored the mutation No.1313. The R.S.A. was accordingly disposed of as infructuous. Liberty, however, was given to the State to challenge the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, in accordance with law. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application was moved, which was allowed by this Court and the order, dismissing the R.S.A as infructuous, was modified, permitting the petitioners to withdraw the main suit. Since there is no challenge to all these actions before this Court, it is not appropriate to comment on the move made by the petitioners in this regard. The submission that no offence is made out from the FIR would be too early to receive any comment. Investigation can not be scuttled at this initial stage. Even otherwise, quashing of the FIR, just 10 days after its registration, without giving any opportunity to the investigating agency to investigate the same would certainly be not an exercise which is called for in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Confronting with this position, the counsel appearing for the petitioners had sought adjournment and case was adjourned for today. CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.27959 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: An application has now been moved seeking permission to withdraw the present petition. I am not inclined to accept this request as the same has been made finding that Court was not inclined to grant the relief claimed in the main petition for quashing of the FIR. This application is accordingly dismissed and the same would be the fate of the main petition, which is also dismissed as it lacks merit. October 31, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE