IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.21751 -M of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 SOMBIR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of FIR No.35 dated 13.04.2011 under Sections 406, 420, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Behal, District Bhiwani (Annexure P-3). Order dated 20.7.2011, reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on similar complaint made by father of respondent No.2-complainant, the version of complainant's father was found to be false vide report Annexure P-2 and thereafter, the complainant lodged impugned FIR Annexure P-3 on same averments. Notice of motion for 15.09.2011. Meanwhile investigation may go on, but presentation of final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall remain stayed.” Criminal Misc. No.21751 -M of 2011 (O&M) 2 2 Reply on behalf of respondent-State has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. 3 In para-3 of the petition, it has been pleaded that father of the complainant; namely, Yagpal Singh, filed a complaint with the police on 9.9.2010. Inquiry thereupon was conducted and after investigation, it was found to be false and baseless. In that regard, report dated 7.1.2011 (Annexure P-2) was submitted. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the earlier inquiry was only on a complaint. No investigation had been conducted. On the complaint of respondent No.2, FIR (Annexure P-3) was registered. During investigation, incriminating material against the petitioner has been found. It has been disclosed that the petitioner received ` 70,000/-, however, did not provide any service to respondent No.2 and, therefore, has committed the offences, as alleged. The investigation has been verified by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Bhiwani. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further pointed out that specimen signatures of the accused are required to be taken. 6 Considering the fact that on the first complaint, no FIR was lodged and after filing of the second complaint, FIR has been lodged, and during investigation incriminating material has been found against the petitioner, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit and counter affidavit to record a finding that no offence has Criminal Misc. No.21751 -M of 2011 (O&M) 3 been committed by the petitioner. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 15, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?