Criminal Misc. No. M-15840 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15840 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Sukhbir Singh Punia .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 164 dated 21.12.2007, registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Pillu Khera, District Jind. The allegations in the FIR are that other co-accused in the FIR constituted a society in the name of Shri Ganesh Gramo Udyog Mandal, Pillu Khera Mandi, Jind for PCPI Industry. The Society applied for a loan to respondent No. 2- complainant. The role of co-accused- Ishwar Singh Patwari is that he verified that the loan applicant was the exclusive owner in possession of the land free from all encumbrances and the value thereof was Rs. 157,927/-, on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned and disbursed. The amount of loan was misappropriated by the loanee as no instalment was repaid. When recovery certificate was sent to the Collector, it was reported that the accused had already sold away the mortgaged property way back on 16.9.1985. It is with these allegations that the FIR was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no role to play in the entire sequence of facts, as other co-accused- Ram Chander was authorised to do all the acts on behalf of the Society. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. The submission is that it is a case of practically no evidence against the petitioner and continuation of trial against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment to him. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where at this initial stage, the FIR against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. The petitioner in the present case is one of the members of the Criminal Misc. No. M-15840 of 2009 [2] Society, which had raised the loan. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not the person incharge, who had raised the loan, cannot be found to be sufficient for quashing of the FIR at this very initial stage, as it would be a matter of evidence, which the court will appreciate after the prosecution and the defence lead their evidence. It is too early for this Court to appreciate and comment on the quality of the evidence in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where the prayer in the petition is for quashing of the FIR. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.7.2009 mk