IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-35052 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.12.2009 Partab @ Pratap Hablani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr. Bhishma Kinger, Advocate for the petitioner. ... MAHESH GROVER,J. Crl.M.No.M-63133 of 2009 Crl.Misc. is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.M-35052 of 2009 (O&M) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No. 20 dated 2.3.2009 under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC at Police Station GRP, Amritsar. The accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner is a Pakistani national and that certain documents like PAN card, driving licence, etc. were issued to him by the Indian authorities. He further contended that he is the holder of Pakistani passport and while he was travelling to Pakistan his documents were Crl.M.No.M-35052 of 2009 (O&M) -2- checked and the Immigration Officer concerned noticed the discrepancy in the documents leading to the registration of the aforesaid FIR against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the allegations are vague and false and that the petitioner is a bona fide citizen of Pakistan with a valid long term VISA to stay in India and the documents which have been obtained by him from the Income Tax Department and Licencing Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act were not obtained by any fraudulent means and that the challan is absolutely silent on this aspect. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. Whether or not the petitioner had obtained the documents fraudulently is yet to be established on the basis of evidence. As on today prima facie the police has found the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of offence. Another glaring fact with a striking feature of the case is that the petitioner has written his name in the documents differently. In the passport his name is “Partab” whereas in other documents his name has been written as “Pratap” It is not expected of any individual to give different names in the documents unless there is an ulterior motive to do so. Be that as it may, this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not empowered to look into these allegations at this stage and comment on the same. It is for the petitioner to establish his case before the trial court by producing cogent evidence on record and by putting forward his plea. Crl.M.No.M-35052 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Thus, no ground to quash the FIR is made out. Dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that some application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the trial court since long and the same has not been disposed of. There is no material before this court from which it can be inferred that there is an inordinate delay in disposing of the application moved by the petitioner. No zimni orders have been placed on the record. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court for disposal of the same. It is always expected from a court that the matter shall be disposed of expeditiously. 10.12.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss