CRM No.M-14890 of 2011 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM No.M-14890 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision : 19.8.2011 Palwinder Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr. B.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr.APS Mann, Advocate, for private respondent --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for quashing of the FIR No.48 dated 28.4.2011 under Sections 379, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar City, on the plea that lodging of the FIR itself is an abuse of process of Court. Notice of motion. Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of official respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. APS Mann, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in mala- fide exercise of powers, FIR has been lodged insomuch as apprehending arrest, the petitioner filed an application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail. Stand of concerned police official was that no FIR was registered in Police Station Cantonment and no enquiry is pending. In such circumstances, the bail application was dismissed as infructuous. Learned counsel contends that thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. While the application was dismissed on CRM No.M-14890 of 2011 (O & M) -2- 4.4.2011, the FIR has been lodged on 28.4.2011. It transpires that the investigation is still going on. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State and respondent No.6 have pointed out that Trilok Bedi was the landlord and Balwan Singh was the tenant. The tenancy had been terminated and Balwan Singh was holding the property as a licensee. The landlord-respondent No.6- the complainant was sick and therefore, was not living in the house for some time during which period the petitioner committed offence as reported in the FIR. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that it is a landlord-tenant dispute. Investigation is still going on. This Court cannot take evidence by way of affidavit and counter-affidavit to arrive at a conclusion that the FIR is palpably false and therefore, needs to be quashed. In such circumstances, no order favouring the petitioner can be passed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In any case, the petitioner being the accused has the right to project his case before the Investigating Agency. It is directed that the petitioner would be heard and documents on his behalf be taken by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation,s so as to decipher the truth. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 19.8.2011 akm