LAWS(P&H)-2002-5-216

MANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 24, 2002
MANDEEP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure for quashing First Information Report No. 58 of 1993 under Section 406/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner became dealer for distribution of Gilden L.P.G. gas under the firm M/s. Osaka International Ambala which was authorized distributors of Gilden LPG gas. The police registered First Information Report against the petitioner alleging that the same was a bogus agency and collecting money by defrauding people on the promise of issuance of L.P.G. gas connections. It was further claimed that the petitioner on the basis of advertisement in-the newspapers purported to be issued by M/s. Osaka International Nicholson Road Ambala obtained dealership of L.P.G. gas and deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- with M/s. Osaka International which was the main dealer of the LPG gas on the basis of authorization letter dated 28.7.1993 copy of which is Annexure P-2. The security was deposited vide receipt Anrexure P-3. Rs. 10,000/- for part payment of the form to be filled in by the petitioner for gas connections was also deposited vide Annexure P-4. The name of the petitioner is in the list of dealers for the distribution of L.P.G. gas. The case has been registered against the petitioner on the ground that he has no permit or licence for opening the gas agency. The petitioner claimed that he is a duly authorized sub-dealer for distribution of Gilden L.P.G. gas and the offence, if any, is committed by M/s. Osaka International. It is further claimed that the police has recorded the statements of some persons under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure out of which some of them had not booked any gas connection. The petitioner has claimed that the First Information. Report against the petitioner is without any basis and the proceedings subsequent thereto needs to be quashed.

(3.) The contents of the petition have been perused as well as learned State counsel had been heard.