Crl. Misc. No. M-8325 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.7.2009 (1) Criminal Misc. No. M-8325 of 2008 Jarnail Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc. No. M-7027 of 2008 Gurbachan Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. P. S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions, as prayer in both the petitions is for quashing of FIR No. 63 dated 19.4.2004, registered under Section 379 IPC, at Police Station, City Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, against the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in the aforesaid FIR on the basis of supplementary statement of Yadwinder Singh, though initially the FIR was registered regarding theft of the truck owned by Jarnail Singh son of Shubeg Singh. The petitioners were transport contractors working for Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited (sic). On 17.4.2004, truck bearing No. PUS -7945 was loaded with 300 bags of wheat, each weighing 50 kilograms, which was to be unloaded at the plinth of Punjab Agro, Jalalabad. The material did not reach Crl. Misc. No. M-8325 of 2008 [ 2] the destination. Petitioner-Jarnail Singh got the impugned FIR registered regarding the theft of the truck along with the material. It was alleged in the FIR that the truck had been stolen in connivance with the driver and the cleaner. Subsequently, on a statement of Yadwinder Singh, the petitioners were arrayed as accused in the FIR, quashing of which is prayed for in the present petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence against the petitioner is made out. The petitioners were, in fact, complainants. The truck was stolen. In terms of the transport agreement, it was the duty of the petitioners to make good any loss suffered by Punjab Agro to the goods in transit on that account. Immediately after the loss of the truck and the goods, the loss was made good out of the stocks maintained by the petitioners, they being big zamindars. Considering these facts, no malafide can be attributed to the petitioners and no offence is made out. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions. Firstly, there is no material on record to show the terms of transport contract between the parties regarding liability of the transporter of the goods in transit. Secondly, petitioner-Jarnail Singh got the FIR registered on 19.4.2004 regarding loss of the truck and the goods, which were loaded on 17.4.2004. In a communication addressed to Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited on 20.4.2004, it was stated that the truck was found by petitioner-Jarnail Singh at Mandi Ladhu Ke, but there were no bags of wheat. It was undertaken that the petitioner will make the loss of wheat good to Punjab Agro. Thereafter, on 21.4.2004, petitioner-Jarnail Singh deposited 300 bags of wheat with Jalalabad Depot of Punjab Ago. The important aspect of this is that 300 bags of wheat deposited with Punjab Agro on 21.4.2004 were in the printed gunny bags of Punjab Agro. On a repeated query by the court, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to answer the question as to from where the petitioners got the gunny bags of the marka of Punjab Agro, which, in fact, had been stolen along with the wheat, as was claimed by the petitioners. The bags with the marka of Punjab Agro were not available for sale in the open market, which certainly causes a suspicion and the case is not as simple, as is sought to be projected. Merely because the petitioners had made the loss good to the Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited, they cannot be absolved of the criminal liability. Proceedings in the FIR cannot be scuttled at the threshold as the same require full length trial, as the claim of the parties will be examined by the court after the evidence is led. Crl. Misc. No. M-8325 of 2008 [ 3] For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.7.2009 mk