Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. :—

The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, complainant Vijay Kumar son of Suresh Kumar respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), after taking the loan from the Canara Bank, had purchased the scooter, bearing registration No.PB-08-AJ-9468. Ramjit Singh (petitioner No.2) stood surety/guarantor against the loan. The complainant sold the scooter to Gurdeep Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, vide receipt dated 6.2.2006 (Annexure P2). Since the complainant did not hand over the RC of the scooter and no dues certificate as promised, so, Gurdeep Singh-purchaser filed the complaint (Annexure P3) before the police against him.

2. According to the petitioners that Ramjit Singh (petitioner No.2) had filed the complaint against Kamal and Bhushan relatives of the complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Some other complaints were also pending against Tanuja Luthra, sister and Pawan Luthra, brother of the complainant. The complainant was stated to have lodged a false criminal case as a counter blast against the petitioners-accused on the ground that on 11.1.2006, they (petitioners) came to his house, started abusing and asked him as to why he (complainant) had not returned the instalments, as the bank was harassing them (petitioners) being guarantor. It was claimed that ultimately, they (petitioners-accused) forcibly took the scooter and empty gas cylinder from his house. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by way of FIR No.42 dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 451, 380 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.5, Jalandhar.

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the criminal case, petitioner Gian Singh (since deceased) and his son Ramjit Singh have preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that the complainant has falsely lodged the FIR against them as a counter blast to the complaint under section 138 of the Act filed by Ramjit Singh (petitioner No.2) against his (complainant) sister and brother. The matter was inquired into and the police came to the conclusion that the complainant has lodged a false case against the petitioners and recommended for cancellation of the case, by means of detailed reports dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure P4) and 15.9.2008 (Annexure P5).

4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioners claimed that the complainant has lodged the complaint vexatiously and maliciously in order to wreak vengeance. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, in the manner described hereinbefore.

5. The respondents refuted the prayer of petitioners. The State of Punjab filed its reply, whereas the complainant filed his separate reply, wherein it was pleaded that no doubt, initially, the case was recommended for cancellation, by virtue of report (Annexure P4), but subsequently, in pursuance of order dated 6.9.2007 (Annexure R1/T) of Superintendent of Police City-1, Jalandhar, the case was re-investigated and it was recommended to take further action against the accused, after obtaining the opinion of DA Legal, vide report dated 23.2.2008 (Annexure R2/1). However, the factum of recommendation for cancellation of the case, by way of reports (Annexures P4 & P5) is not denied. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that the respondents have reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document