Crl. Misc. No. M-28081 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-28081 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.8.2011. Kamaljit Singh .......Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for U.T. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner had been approaching the respondents for registration of First Information Report ('FIR' for short) qua theft of his Indica Car No. PB-49A-2100. However, the FIR was not registered by the respondents. Petitioner preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-21216 of 2010 seeking directions to respondents to register the FIR regarding theft of his car. The said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.7.2010 to enable the petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner approached the Area Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to respondents to register the FIR qua theft of his car. On Crl. Misc. No. M-28081 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - the said application, following order dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P-6) was passed by the Area Magistrate:- “Heard. No ground made out to sent the complaint to police. Hence case is adjourned to 24.9.2010 for recording statement of complainant.” Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a case of theft of the car of the petitioner. The application moved by the petitioner seeking registration of FIR could not be treated as a private complaint by the Area Magistrate as it was not possible for the petitioner to investigate qua theft of his car. Learned counsel for the administration has submitted that on an application moved by the petitioner to respondent No.3, the matter was duly investigated and it was found that the car of the petitioner had not been stolen as alleged by him. The petitioner was also not found residing at the address given by him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, the petitioner had approached the Magistrate for a direction to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-26, Chandigarh to register an FIR qua theft of his car. It is not a case where the petitioner can hold an inquiry qua the alleged offence. The petitioner can merely make a statement before the Magistrate that his car has been stolen. The petitioner cannot be expected to establish as to who has stolen his car. It is only the police who can investigate into the matter and find out as to who has stolen the car of the petitioner or after investigation police can report that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false. In any case, the matter could have been only investigated by the police. Crl. Misc. No. M-28081 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure P-6) is set aside. The Area Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE August 01, 2011 Gurpreet