KAMAL BHATIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts alleged in the petition were long but the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments only pressed for one plea namely that because the amount has since been paid, therefore, the first information report against the petitioner should be quashed. In any case he urged that the respondent had been making statement in different courts to the effect that he would withdraw the criminal complaint pending against the petitioner.

(2.) KEEPING in view the said submission, it is unnecessary to refer to all the detailed assertions of the petitioner. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 89 dated 7.12.1994 with respect to offence punishable under Section 420 IPC along with all subsequent proceedings including filing of the challan in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara.

(3.) THE petition has been contested and in the reply filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it has been alleged that challan has since been presented in the trial court. The law must take its own course. It was further asserted that on 24.2.1994 the co-accused of the petitioner issued a cheque to respondent No. 2 for purchase of 1,200 shares. The petitioner did not make the payment. On 1.3.1994 in addition to 1,200 shares, 200 more shares were purchased. They had cheated respondent No. 2 because the petitioner was not even a member of the Stock Exchange.