PAWAN DHOOT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAWAN Dhoot - petitioner has directed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short the Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No.126 dated 28.07.2012 registered at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur under Sections 420, 380, 120 -B, 465, 461, 467, 411, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short the IPC) and the subsequent supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 380, 120 -B, 465, 461, 467, 411, 468 and 471 of the IPC on the ground that the present petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the impugned FIR as he had ceased to be Director of the company on 1.3.2012 and the impugned FIR was registered on 28.07.2012.

(2.) THIS FIR is registered on the basis of a complaint made by H.S.Sodhi, Proprietor, Fortune Rider, CHR Group, Prestige Chamber, Jalandhar regarding the mishandling of the material lying at the site of construction at Ferozepur Cantt. As per the complainant, material worth Rs.1.5 -2 crores was lying at the site, which was being mishandled by Dhoot Developments through its employees. The complainants were threatened not to enter the site due to which it had filed a writ against Dhoot Developers in Delhi High Court on 16.11.2011. The High Court has permitted the complainant to pick up material after notification to Dhoot Developers' employees. The complainant accordingly has approached the site 2 -3 times but the petitioners did not permit them to pick up the material, which was also found missing from the site. The list of the material attached was presented before the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, the complainant has requested the police to take appropriate action against the people who were stealing the material from the site and keeping the forcible possession of the material in violation of the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi. The petitioner pleaded that no cognizable offence is disclosed from the complaint and the present petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the impugned FIR as he had ceased to be Director of the company on 1.3.2012 and the impugned FIR was registered on 28.07.2012. Therefore, the present petitioner has nothing to do with the impugned FIR and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file.