Crl. Misc. No. M – 10000 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 10000 of 2009 Date of decision:- 3.2.2010 Amarjit Sehgal & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the complainant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Petitioners Amarjit Sehgal, Amardeep Gujral and Jagjit Singh have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the Kalandra bearing D.D.No. 12, dated 4.2.2007 under Section 182 IPC registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, presented in the Court against the petitioners. The facts have not been disputed that after completion of investigation in FIR No. 22 dated 2.2.2007, under Sections 365 and 506 IPC lodged by the petitioners at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. Investigating agency submitted the cancellation report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but he did not agree with the same and ordered further investigation. The proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the petitioners before any finding was recorded by the Crl. Misc. No. M – 10000 of 2009 -2- learned criminal Court regarding the falsity of the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The matter is squarely covered by Babita Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 516 and Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 718. In the first ruling cancellation report was submitted before the Magistrate, but it was not accepted. Before acceptance of that, a complaint was made under Section 182 IPC against the person who had lodged that FIR. It was held therein that where the final opinion by the Court is yet to be expressed as regard the falsity of the complaint made by the petitioner, permitting the respondents to proceed with the proceedings under Section 182 IPC would amount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The petition is pre-mature and would amount to abuse of process of law. The proceedings in that case were quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. Similar proposition of law was laid down in Ramesh Chand's case (Supra). When such is the position the continuation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of the Court and those are ordered to be quashed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. February 3, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge