Crl. Misc. No.M-16387 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-16387 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.07.2010 Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 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. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.147 dated 22.08.2007 registered under Section 406 IPC (Sections 420/120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station City Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The facts, in short, are that respondent No.2/complainant lodged FIR No.147 dated 22.08.2007, which was initially registered under Section 406 IPC with the allegations that he had been doing the business of financing the vehicles and that the main accused Harminder Singh took a loan of Rs.36,000/- from the complainant for the purchase of motor cycle. The other accused, namely, Kulwant Singh stood as Guarantor for the Crl. Misc. No.M-16387 of 2009 2 repayment of the loan amount. However, neither the main accused, namely, Harminder Singh nor the guarantor had paid the instalments. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR and no role was attributed to him. The dispute was entirely civil in nature. Instead of initiating civil proceedings, the present FIR has been lodged to pressurize the accused. In any case, the liability of re-payment of loan was either of the borrower or the Guarantor. Thus, no offence is made out against the present petitioner. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner was present at the time of purchasing of motor cycle and that the vehicle was in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was impleaded as party and, accordingly, upon service, learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared on 09.09.2009 and prayed for time to file reply. Time was granted and the matter was adjourned to 07.10.2009. No one put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 on the adjourned date. Thereafter, on all subsequent dates i.e. 25.01.2010, 22.04.2010, as well as, on 15.07.2010, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 nor any reply has been filed. It is not denied that the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the FIR. It is also an admitted position that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner is neither the borrower of the loan nor the guarantor. The only allegation against the petitioner was that he was present at the time of purchasing of the motor cycle. No offence under Section 406 IPC (Sections 420/120-B added later) can be said to have been made out against the present petitioner on the basis of these allegations. Even though, it is mentioned in the reply that the vehicle is in the possession of the petitioner, no recovery has been effected from him till date. Obviously, it is a mere averment without any basis. The motor cycle has not been recovered till date. Thus, no offence is made out against the present petitioner on Crl. Misc. No.M-16387 of 2009 3 the basis of the allegations in the FIR. Therefore, the FIR qua the present petitioner is a misuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.147 dated 22.08.2007 registered under Section 406 IPC (Sections 420/120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station City Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are, hereby, quashed qua the present petitioner only. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet