RISHI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.16 dated 12.1.2012 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.

(2.) The complainant-respondent No.2, namely, Sunil Kumar son of Bhim Singh has lodged the aforesaid FIR to the effect that he is doing the work of sanitary. After the registration of the case, investigation was conducted by the Economic Offence Wing, Karnal and during investigation, Anil Kumar son of Jog Ram, caste Rajput, resident of Ariyapura, who is working as meter reader in the village on behalf of Electricity Board came to the complainant and stated that his brother-in-law Janak Singh, who is residing at Kuccha Camp, Panipat, is having relations with higher Railway authorities and has got appointed many boys in the ministry quota with the help of Railway officials. Said Anil Kumar demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and out of which Rs.2,00,000/- were required to be paid immediately whereas the balance amount was payable after the appointment letter and posting. The complainant believed accused Anil Kumar and paid him Rs.2,00,000/- at village Chaura after taking the same from his father in February, 2011. At the time of payment, accused Janak Singh was also present with Anil Kumar. The accused have also taken signatures of the complainant on many forms and other documents including passport size photographs. Thereafter, another amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid to Anil Kumar on 23.3.2011 where Janak Singh met the complainant and accompanied him to Calcutta. On 24.3.2011, Janak Singh got him medically examined at Orthopedic Hospital, Eastern Railway, Howrah and on 25.3.2011 with the help of some officials, he got his reporting and his signatures on some register. However, Anil Kumar and Janak Singh gave appointment letter to the complainant on 12.4.2011 and posting letter on 30.4.2011. When these documents were shown to Delhi Railway Board, the complainant was informed that these are forged documents and someone had cheated him. These letters were never issued by Delhi Railway Board. When the complainant asked Anil Kumar and Janak Singh to pay back his money, the accused avoided on one pretext or the other. It is on these facts, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR and there is no entrustment of money to him. Therefore, the FIR qua the petitioner is liable to be quashed.