IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.63902-M of 2006 Date of decision: March 26, 2008 Charanjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of Calendra filed under Section 182 IPC registered vide D.D.R. No. 40 dated 15.06.2004 at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. Briefly, the facts are that on the application of the petitioner, FIR No.316 was registered on 18.09.2003 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. The allegations were that the car belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No.PB-10AC-5300 had been taken away by some unknown persons on 12.09.2003. In the car a bag containing Rs.20,000/- and a cylinder was also taken away. On 27.09.2003, the petitioner came to know from the financer of the car that their recovery agents had taken the car. This was inspite of the fact that neither any installment of loan was due nor any notice was issued to the petitioner regarding taking possession of the car. Keeping in view the conduct of the financer, petitioner immediately settled the entire amount of the financer and the matter was compromised. It is stated that it was specifically mentioned in the compromise that the car was taken by the financer without any fault of the petitioner. The Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) was submitted Criminal Misc. No.63902-M of 2006 -2- before the police authorities. The police authorities submitted an untraced report before the learned Magistrate and also filed Calendra against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC. The petitioner was summoned in proceedings under Section 182 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a short argument that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC is nothing else but abuse of process of law. In the present case it is yet to be determined that the complaint made by the petitioner of theft of car was false as those proceedings are yet to attain finality. In the present case, after submission of untraced report by the police authorities before the learned Magistrate, on an objection raised by the petitioner to the untraced report, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.03.2007 had sent the file of the case back to the police for further investigation. According to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner has not received any notice from the police for further enquiry and as per his information after further investigation no report has yet been furnished in the Court as he has not received any notice. The submission is that once the proceedings on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner have not attained finality, the presentation of Calendra against the petitioner is nothing else but abuse of process of law. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355 & this Court in Ajit Singh Lambardar v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 70 and in Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal),718 and in Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Criminal) 791. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not dispute the factual position stated by the petitioner, as the same being matter of record. Criminal Misc. No.63902-M of 2006 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Once the proceeding on the complaint filed by the petitioner on the basis of which FIR was registered for theft of his car has not yet attained finality as the untraced report submitted by the police was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and the file was returned for further investigation, in my opinion, initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC is nothing else but abuse of process of law. In Ramesh Chand's case (supra), this Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the police under Section 182 IPC in the facts where, though, the police on investigation had found the allegations made by the complainant to be false, but on a complaint filed by the complainant on the same allegations, the accused had been summoned. Accordingly, it was opined that at that stage it could not be said that the complaint made by the petitioner was totally false. To the similar facts is the judgment of this Court in Tarlochan Singh's case (supra). Keeping in view the facts of the present case, 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 same in fact would amount to abuse of process of law and it would be proper to secure the ends of justice to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, present petition is accepted, Calendra (Annexure P-3) presented by the police and all subsequent proceedings thereto against the petitioner are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. March 26, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) nt JUDGE