Crl. Misc. No. M-7874 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-7874 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9th November, 2011 Gopal Dass & another ……… Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ………… Respondents ***** CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.S. Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. None for respondent No.2. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 279 dated 20.11.2004 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the FIR against the main accused namely Darshan Kaur stands quashed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2008 in CRM No. M-39354 of 2007 (Annexure P-11). His contention is that the allegation against the petitioner No.1 is only that he had introduced the complainant respondent No.2 to the main accused Darshan Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh @ Balbir Singh. He further contends that no money was ever handed over to petitioner No.1 nor was he involved in any other act which would, independent of the allegations against the main accused Darshan Kaur, leave him liable for prosecution or punishment. As regards petitioner No.2, who is son of petitioner No.1, the allegation against him has only come in the supplementary statement dated 12.12.2004 wherein it is alleged that an amount of Rs. 1200/- was given to him to bring some ‘Samgri’ for ‘Jagrata’. It is not the allegation Crl. Misc. No. M-7874 of 2009 -2- against him that the said amount was misappropriated or misused by him. He accordingly prays for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the offences are clearly made out against the petitioner No.1 as he was the person who was instrumental in introducing the complainant with Darshan Kaur, who had cheated the complainant in connivance with the petitioner. He could not dispute the fact that the FIR qua Darshan Kaur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stands quashed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2008 in CRM No. M-39354 of 2007 (Annexure P-11). Notice of this petition was issued to the State as well as the complainant, who was impleaded as respondent No.2. Reply has been filed by respondent No.2. Perusal of which does not indicate any specific role which is attributable to the petitioner except the petitioner was the person who had introduced the complainant to Darshan Kaur. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-11) would indicate that a compromise was entered into between the parties i.e. the complainant and the main accused Darshan Kaur. In pursuance thereto Rs. three lacs were paid to the complainant but subsequently after receiving the amount he had backed out from the compromise and had even refused to return the amount. Faced with situation the Court had proceeded to quash the FIR qua Darshan Kaur. In the light of quashing of the FIR qua Darshan Kaur, main accused in the case, offences which have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot survive. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he being the co- worker of the complainant had informed him that Smt. Darshan Kaur could help her with regard to the disease of the complainant’s son, who had some mental disorder. It is not the allegation that any money was paid to petitioner No.1 or that he has received some money out of the money paid by the complainant to Darshan Kaur. As regards petitioner No.2 the only allegation against him, that Crl. Misc. No. M-7874 of 2009 -3- too in the supplementary statement dated 12.12.2004 (Annexure P-5), is that he had been given Rs. 1200/- for bringing some ‘Samgri’ for ‘Jagrata’, which was to be done by Darshan Kaur. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 279 dated 20.11.2004 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Malerkotla, District Sangrur (Annexure P-3), qua the petitioner, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 09.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) ‘sp’ Judge