Crl. Misc. No.M-12603 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-12603 of 2010 Date of Decision: 03.05.2010 Jugmender ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR No.306 dated 30.07.2009 under Sections 452, 323, 506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat and all other proceedings consequent thereto. It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and it is only on the statement of co-accused Sandeep that the name of the petitioner cropped up and he has been implicated falsely. Whereas, during investigation, it has come to light that Indigo Car is neither in the name of the petitioner nor the petitioner is, in any way, owner of the said vehicle. The allegations in the FIR are that two unknown persons entered in the house of the complainant and threatened to kill him. The father of the complainant and complainant were also attacked. They were carrying revolver in their hands. These two persons were further accompanied with 5-6 other persons. When Ashok, the uncle of the Crl. Misc. No.M-12603 of 2010 2 complainant came forward, he was hit with hand of revolver and was injured in the process. Two of these persons were recognized as Dharamvir and Om Parkash Sharma. The matter has been investigated. Challan has been filed. The petitioner has been found to be one of these persons stated to be the `unknown' in the FIR. Thus, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out. The entire allegations as evident from the FIR is a matter of evidence. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be used sparingly only in case no offence is made out from the reading of the FIR or in case the same is the misuse of the process of law. The facts of the case, as evident from the FIR do not satisfy the conditions for quashing the FIR or exercising discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet