Crl. Misc. No. M-20727 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20727 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 20, 2010 Vikas Bhardwaj ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. APS Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharath Sarup, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr KS Banyana, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition has been filed by Vikas Bhardwaj-petitioner,under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of the FIR No. 39 dated 18.3.2009 registered at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari, under Sections 170, 420 and 384 IPC and the and all other proceedings taken in pursuance thereof, on the grounds mentioned therein. On notice of motion having been issued, the respondents appeared and filed their respective replies. This FIR was got registered by respondent No.2/complainant, in which he levelled direct allegations against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had asked him to pay monthly and otherwise his motor vehicle bearing registration No. HR-20P/4649 Crl. Misc. No. M-20727 of 2009 2 would be seized and that he was informed by his owner on the telephone to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner and that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was received by the petitioner from the driver of another vehicle in which goats were being transported. In the reply respondent No.2 pleaded that all the facts have already been stated in the affidavit annexed with the petition as Annexure P/8. In that affidavit he deposed that the petitioner never demanded any money from him nor he was known to him. When respondent No.2/complainant is taking that stand, there is no possibility of him supporting the prosecution case in the court and in such a situation, to continue with the prosecution will be a futile exercise. In view of the affidavit and the reply of respondent No.2, the above said FIR and the subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed. However, by swearing that affidavit, respondent No.2 made himself liable for the offence of perjury, as he made two different statements on the same facts at two different times. The State is to proceed against him for having committed that offence. The petition is disposed of accordingly. July 20, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE