CRM No. M-25770 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-25770 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2009 Harbans Lal Khatri ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad, vide FIR No.286 dated 22nd September, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, no role is ascribed to him in the entire case and the petitioner is not beneficiary of the transaction in any manner. The prayer for quashing has, however, been opposed by the counsel for the State. He has referred to the reply filed on behalf of the State. He has submitted that the petitioner had played an active role in the commission of crime and thus there is no ground on which the CRM No. M-25770 of 2008 2 petitioner can pray for quashing of the FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 15th June, 2007, he alongwith co-accused managed to extract original copy of agreement to sell from the complainant by issuing a cheque of rupees one crore. The cheque, however, later bounced. The petitioner is not only stated to be present at the time of transaction but the documents, such as agreement to sell and receipt etc., are said to have been kept in his possession. Under the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. There is no ground to interfere in this case in inherent jurisdiction of this court. All the pleas raised in the petition are factual in nature and can be appreciated by the trial court after some evidence is led before it. Even otherwise, there is nothing to show that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case or that no offence is made out qua him. On the other hand, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. This petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 23, 2009 'rajpal'