← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/33590/2015dismissed

Raj Kumar v. State Of Haryana & ANR

2015-10-05Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM M-33590 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM M-33590 of 2015 Date of decision : 05.10.2015 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana & anr.

....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 468 dated 19.09.2015 registered under sections 420/467/468/471 IPC at police station City Tohana, district Fatehabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended that from the perusal of FIR, no offence is made out. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations levelled are totally false and fabricated. According to him, FIR deserves to be quashed as there is delay of one year in lodging the same.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. FIR was lodged by Rajeev Kumar (respondent no. 2). He alleged that he entered into a registered agreement to sell dated 14.05.2014 with Raj Kumar (petitioner herein) regarding a property measuring 161.33 square yards situated at Bhatia Nagar Tohana district Fatehabad. A date was fixed for completing the formalities including registration etc. On 15.09.2014, he and his aunt waited in the Tehsil office but petitioner did not turn up. After a few days, AJAY KUMAR 2015.10.06 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-33590 of 2015 brother of the petitioner produced a receipt to show his presence in the Tehsil office on 15.09.2014 by preparing some 'receipt' in which there was a tampering. Pursuant to FIR, investigation ensued. Matter is still under investigation. The plea of the petitioner that FIR be quashed at this stage on the ground that no offence is made out and allegations are false, is misconceived. In the eventuality, there is tampering in the receipt purportedly issued by Tehsil office, matter would be serious in nature. However, this court does not intend to express any opinion on merits of the case as investigation is underway. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court. Dismissed.

October 05, 2015 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2015.10.06 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document