C.W.P. No.23308 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23308 of 2011 Date of Decision. 15.12.2011 Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of House No.461, A-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of complaint registered for offences under Section 420 and 506 IPC with Amritsar Police Division D on the basis of which a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been presented before the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Learned counsel wants to contend that the complaint contains patent falsity, for it fails to disclose that there had been a subsequent agreement, which had modified the terms relating to the name of the mortgagee and the basis of the complaint itself was that the agreement had been executed without reference to the mortgage in favour of the State Cooperative Bank. 2. A complaint could be registered on the basis of facts disclosed and if the facts disclosed in the complaint make out an offence, it is perfectly tenable to register a complaint and file the report. If any C.W.P. No.23308 of 2011 -2- fresh evidence is to be brought to show that what is contained in the complaint is not true, it shall be open to a party to apply to the Court for a discharge if sufficient grounds are made and cannot take it as a ground for a challenge to a writ petition and for quashing of the complaint. It appears that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court but later withdraw it. 3. The writ petition challenging the registration of a complaint is consequently dismissed but the petitioner will have the liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case is pending for appropriate redressal. If such an application is moved, the application will be decided before undertaking the trial of the case. 4. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 15, 2011 Pankaj*