Kalu Ram v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42246-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.01.2021 Kalu Ram ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) Heard through video conferencing.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa to register an FIR on the basis of complaint dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has a business of commission agent and has been honestly delivering the services relating to his business. He would further contend that respondent No.4 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner and that respondent No.4 is a blackmailer and he has filed many false cases against innocent people on the basis of blank cheques. He is running a gang and threatens the people. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made a complaint dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) YOGESH SHARMA 2021.01.28 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document against respondent No.4, however, no action has been taken so far.

CRM-M-42246-2020 (O&M) -2Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab has joined the session through video conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. He, on instructions from ASI Nam Dev Singh, has stated that the representation filed by the petitioner has since been looked into and the allegations therein have been found to be false. Further, learned State counsel has pointed out that in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed against the petitioner, the petitioner stands convicted and sentenced and that the appeal against the judgment is pending.

In view of the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner stands decided and the allegations therein have been found to be false, no further order is required to be passed in the present case. Disposed off, accordingly.

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 27.01.2021 Yogesh Sharma NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2021.01.28 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document