IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 35474 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2011 Suresh Pal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RANJIT SINGH J. Suresh Pal-petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 673 dated 15.11.2010 registered against him under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at police station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR is that he had taken a loan of ` 4 lakhs in all for purchase of house. The petitioner, however, refused to refund this amount and also threatened respondent No.2/complainant for implicating him in a false case if he demanded return of the loan amount. Respondent No. 2, accordingly, lodged an FIR against the petitioner for which he approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The bail was granted to the petitioner on the condition that he would join investigation. The petitioner, however, did not join investigation and his bail has been cancelled. This fact is Crl. Misc. No. M- 35474 of 2010 (O&M) -2- not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. He, however, says that there is no specific order of cancellation but it would deem to have been cancelled because it was granted on a condition of his joining the investigation. State counsel also points out that in addition there are two FIRs pending against the petitioner and perhaps that is the reason he has not gone to join the investigation in this case. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that it is purely a case of civil liability and in case, the petitioner is no more getting the interim protection of stay of his arrest then he can be arrested. I have not been able to appreciate the line of submission pursued by the counsel for the petitioner. The person, who is on the run, and have no respect for law cannot be heard for grant of relief like quashing of the FIR. It will be too bad a day when a person who is denied bail is granted the relief of quashing the FIR against him. It has also to be seen if the person is habitual in getting involved in criminal cases can be heard for quashing of FIR, even if the ground is that no offence is made, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash these criminal proceedings. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE