IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-24637 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 24, 2010 Narendra Rana …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.251 dated 12.07.2010 under sections 467,468,471,406,420 IPC at police station Palam Vihar, District Gurgaon (Annexure P- 1). Complainant Arvind Nath Jha, who is working as Assistant Director with the Central Government, has alleged in the impugned FIR that he had purchased plot No.F-166, New Palam Vihar within the revenue estate of Village Chauma, District Gurgaon in the year 2001. He took loan against the said plot by creating equitable mortgage and original sale deed of the disputed plot is lying with his employer. Repayment of loan is still pending. He raised some construction on the plot and also got the property insured. It is further alleged that on 9.4.2010 when complainant alongwith his wife visited the property in Crl.Misc.No.M-24637 of 2010 - 2 - dispute, they found that some strange persons with suspicious activities had intruded into and put their locks on his property. On 10.4.2010, when complainant revisited his property, some unidentified persons, who were calling one another as Rishi, Raj, Ranejeet and some property dealers from A.I./Avon Property, came there and threatened him to forget about the property and to face dire consequences in case he again visited the property. The complainant went to police station Palam Vihar to report the incident, but the police refused to receive the complaint. The complainant then moved a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, for registration of FIR with a further prayer to protect his life and liberty vis- a-vis his family members. Copies of sale deed dated 13.1.2001, mutation, mortgage deed and insurance papers were also annexed with the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the behest of respondent No.2, who is a senior officer in the Textile Ministry. According to him, no offence is made out against the petitioner in view of documentary evidence placed on record as Annexures P-2 to P-6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the present petition has been filed at a stage when investigation is still pending. The documents sought to be referred to at this stage are not relevant, as investigating agency has not arrived at any conclusion so far. The plea that no offence is made out is Crl.Misc.No.M-24637 of 2010 - 3 - devoid of merit. A perusal of the FIR shows that serious allegations have been levelled therein. It has been alleged that the plot owned by the complainant in Gurgaon had been encroached upon by certain persons. Petitioner is one of the accused therein. As regards the plea that petitioner has been implicated at the behest of respondent No.2, who is an officer in the Central Government, a perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant is posted as Assistant Director in the Ministry of Textile. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that respondent No.2 is in a position to influence the investigating agency. The petition not only lacks merit, but appears to be frivolous. The same is hereby dismissed. August 24, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE