Criminal Misc. No. 31219-M of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 31219-M of 2007 Dated of decision January 31, 2008 Habib Khan and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate Genera, Haryana Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for respondent no.2-complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “ the Code”) is for quashing FIR No. 78 dated February 27, 2007 registered under Sections 406 IPC at Police Station, Nuh, District Mewat and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR registered against the petitioners by respondent no.2 is nothing else but abuse of process of law and infact is a counter blast to the complaint filed by petitioner no.1 against respondent no.2 under Sections 392, 406, 506, 34 IPC in which accused have already been summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated July 24, 2006 whereas present FIR was registered on February 27, 2007. He further submitted that the petitioners had taken loan for purchase of truck from M/s Parnami Credit Limited, Gurgaon in which respondent no.2 was a guarantor and on October 18, 2004 when the petitioner no. 1 was driving the truck and was coming from Tauro Criminal Misc. No. 31219-M of 2007 -2- *** towards Sohna, respondent no.2 and two other persons forcibly took possession of the truck from them for which the complaint was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the complaints earlier filed by respondent No. 2 were duly investigated by the police authorities and nothing was found therein. Still further it is submitted that in the complaint filed by the petitioners charges have already been framed against the private respondents. The stand of respondent no.2 is that infact the petitioners had sold away the truck to some other persons without clearing the loan of which he was guarantor and for that he had filed complaint to the various authorities on December 18, 2004 by registered post and when no action was taken the complaint was made to the Director General of Police and it was only on his intervention that the FIR in question was registered. The complaint in the present case was filed by the petitioners only on January 3, 2005 much after the petitioner had already filed a complaint with the authorities. As regards enquiries conducted by the police on the earlier complaints filed by the private respondent is concerned it was submitted that he was not associated in any of them, hence, not fair. As far as the framing of charge against respondent no.2 in complaint filed by the petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has pointed out that vide order dated January 10, 2008 order framing charge had been set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for the reason that same was not speaking and the matter has been remitted back for fresh consideration. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find it to be a fit case where this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction for quashing the FIR. Admittedly, the incident, when respondent no. 2 allegedly looted the truck from the petitioners, took place on October 18, 2004, however, still there is nothing on record to show as to why the matter was not reported to the police immediately and it was only on January 3, 2005 the complaint was made in the Court whereas respondent no.2 had already filed representation about the factum of the petitioners having sold the truck before clearance of the loan to various authorities on December Criminal Misc. No. 31219-M of 2007 -3- *** 18, 2004. Further keeping in view other factors as referred to above a definite opinion cannot be formed that the FIR in question is a counter blast to complaint filed by the petitioner as there is counter version, which needs to be investigated. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. January 31, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge