Vijender Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 06.10.2023 VIJENDER KUMAR ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate direction to the respondents to register FIR on the basis of complaint dated 12th of July, 2023 made by petitioner. 2.
The gravamen of the complaint is that the petitioner lost a signed cheque-book which has been misused by the accused. The petitioner claims to have represented to the Police Authorities. It is alleged that no action has been taken.
3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of ' Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others', ( the Police Authorities were under obligation to register the case.
4.
The argument is misconceived. The conclusion in the Lalita
Kumari's case (supra) reads as under :
"
! "
#$
% &'
# ## !() * #$ + $ *#)
# !() ) $ + $
* #$ + $ #$ ) $ !()
+ $ ## !()
"
# ) !
* #$ + $ !
#*
*$ $ # ) ** #
,
# ) !
#* *!
- * $ !!
!()
. # ) , ! !
! "
# )$ # !()
- * * #$ + $ $ $ # ) $ # $ !()
. $* * #$ + $ )
* #
- !$ * #$ + $ #$ ) #
/#
* 0 # $ *
) ##
/
!
!
*
)#
$0 !
#
*
1#*
# $ *!
# $ 1* !
$
- $
1
#$ * #$ + $
2 !
*!
! #*
* #$ + $
) # # ) $
1 $
- $ # ) 4
5$ $
% 4
5$0% 5$05 $ 5$
# *
# !
!()
!
! "
!
+ $
# ) # $ #
$ 5$ * #$ + $ # )
# )
"
5.
As per the dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari's case (supra) in the allegations involving financial/fiscal crimes the authorities are within their jurisdiction to make an inquiry and in case they come to the conclusion that no offence is made out they are not obliged to register a case.
6.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is nothing but a ploy to design a defence for an anticipated complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be
abused in the manner the petitioner is trying to. 7.
In view of above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant any indulgence to the petitioner while exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed.
October 06, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No