Criminal Misc. No.39612-M of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No.39612-M of 2007 Date of Decision:19.02.2008 Capt. Rakesh Rehani .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.123 dated 18.4.2006 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala under Sections 419/420 IPC against the petitioner on the complaint by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2- complainant has chosen to remain absent despite service. Both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are real brothers living in the same house. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that the FIR was registered on a complaint of respondent No.2 with the allegation that one courier addressed to the complainant, respondent No.2 was sent which was though allegedly received by the petitioner but was not handed over to the complainant. It has further been stated that the FIR is nothing else but an abuse of process of law. Both the brothers are not in good terms and only with a view to harass the petitioner, respondent No.2 got the FIR in question registered. He further submitted that the courier in question was sent by Akhil Bhartiya Swatantar Lekhak Munch containing the newspaper titled as “Akhil Bhartiya”. The courier which was delivered at a wrong address was received back by the sender thereof as was even acknowledged by it vide communication dated 20.4.2006 (Annexure P.2). The submission is that considering the allegations where firstly the contents of the courier did not Criminal Misc. No.39612-M of 2007 -2- contain any such material which could be misappropriated by the petitioner and further that the same had in fact been received back by the sender, no offence as alleged under Sections 419/420 IPC is made out against the petitioner and the FIR in question being abuse of process of law having been lodged just with a view to harass the petitioner deserves to be quashed. In the written statement, filed by respondent No.1, the stand is that the FIR was registered against the petitioner on a written complaint by respondent No.2, the brother of the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On inquiry, it was found that a courier was sent in the name of respondent No.2- complainant which was allegedly received by the petitioner but was not delivered to the complainant. However, the courier in question has been received back by the sender thereof. The fact that the courier in question was sent by Akhil Bhartiya Swatantar Lekhak Munch containing newspaper is not denied. A perusal of the complaint made by respondent No.2 with the police shows that though the complainant and the petitioner are real brothers living in the same house but all kind of allegations have been made against him showing that both of them are not in good terms. However, keeping in view the fact that the dispute in the present case was merely for alleged wrong delivery of a letter to the petitioner which had been later on received back by the sender as the same was in fact delivered at some other wrong address, in my opinion, continuing with the prosecution on these allegations will result in misuse of process of law and unnecessarily wastage of Court time. Accordingly, the FIR No.123 dated 18.4.2006 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala under Sections 419/420 IPC and all proceedings subsequent thereto are quashed. The petition is disposed of. February 19, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE