LAL CHAND PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the F.I.R. No. 366 dated July 21, 1989 and the subsequent proceedings that took place in the court of Chief Judicid Magistrate, Panipat.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that he and 5 -6 other boys were brought on August 24, 1998 to Chandigarh by respondent No. 2, Jai Singh Raman, Advocate and his brother for the purpose of recruitment in the police force. A sum of the Rs. 20,000/ - was also paid to Jai Singh Raman. However, Jai Singh Raman expressed his inability in getting the petitioner and other boys recruited in the police force. Since the money was not returned by Jai Singh Raman, the petitioner sent a complaint dated January 16, 1989 to Chief Minister Haryana (Annexure P -1) Jai Singh Raman, on coming to know about the complaint against him, filed a false case against the petitioner on July 21, 1989 before the police whereupon F.I.R. No. 366 dated July 21, 1989 was recorded by the Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. The police, after investigation, filed a challan against the petitioner and his uncle Puran Singh in the Court, whereupon charges under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. were framed on May 3, 1991.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint made by the Jai Singh Raman was by way of a counter case against the petitioner because a complaint had already been filed by the petitioner against Jai Singh Raman. F.I.R. No. 444 dated September 15, 1989, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. was also registered by the police against Jai Singh Raman. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner was falsely involved in the case. The petitioner did not receive any money from respondent No. 2, as wrongly alleged in the F.I.R. From the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. filed by Jai Singh Raman, it appeared that money was received by Puran Singh, uncle of the petitioner. The case was, therefore, wrongly registered against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that F.I.R. was lodged against four persons but two persons have been left out by the police.