The judgment emphasized the need for cautious exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and highlighted the requirement for investigation to proceed in cases with disputed facts.

JUDGMENT :

Shekher Dhawan, J.

Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No. 141 dated 20.09.2014 (Annexure P/16) under Sections 420, 408 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division VII, Jalandhar.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present petition; that the petitioner alongwith other members of a Cooperative House building society namely, Graduate Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (for short, "the Society"). The Society purchased 5 acres of land and the desirous members had deposited Rs.,4,000/- each in the first installment and Rs.32,000/- in second installment according to the size of the plots. Swaran Singh, respondent No.2 (complainant of this case) was one of the members of the Society and had deposited Rs.4,000/- on 13.1.1982 vide receipt No. 157 and Rs.32,000/- on 5.3.1982 vide receipt No. 527 and his name was also mentioned in the record along with other members of the Society. Present petitioner, Jaspal Singh Randhawa was Secretary of the Society. As per the petitioner, after deposit of the amount, respondent No.2 had not completed the documents and had not received allotment letter of any plot. As such, the Managing Committee of the Society, on 2.6.1994 initiated enquiry into the matter as to whether allotment of plot in the name of Swaran Singh was a benami transaction. Pursuant to the meeting held on 10.11.1996, a letter was issued to Swaran Singh to verify the fact and for cancellation of plot and allotment of the same to some other member. On 25.11.1996, the Managing Committee authorized the petitioner to get the execution of sale deed and mutation in case of any member wanted to get the sale deed of his plot executed.

3. As per the petitioner, various intimations were sent to Swaran Singh including registered cover letter dated 20.4.1997 (Annexure P/6) at the address i.e., 126, New Grain Market, Jalandhar, but the same was received back with the report that no such person was residing at the given address. However, respondent no.2, Swaran Singh did not bother to approach the Society for allotment of plot in his favour for a period of over 15 years. The Managing Committee, vide resolution dated 2.5.1997 (Annexure P/7) cancelled the allotment of plot No. 44 reserved in favour of the Society and allotted the same to Manmohan Singh having membership No. 132.

4. After 31 years, the Society filed a complaint with the Police on 19.3.2013 and the matter was enquired into, but no forgery was established vide report dated 9.4.2013 (Annexure P/10). Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), vide report dated 11.4.2013 (Annexure P/11 recommended the application to be consigned and had given an option to the complainant to file a civil suit. Swaran Singh filed another complaint before the Police and enquiry was conducted by Additional Deputy Commission of Police, who vide report dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P/12) again reiterated and recommended the complaint to be consigned to the record room.

5. Plea was also taken by the petitioner that the Society had filed a civil suit against the Society for permanent injunction and respondent No. 2 is contesting the same. The petitioner was being harassed by the Police time and again and he had approached this Court by filing CRM-M-12783- 2014 titled Jaspal Singh Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab for directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner at the instance of Swaran Singh. After issuance of notice by this Court, FIR was registered against the petitioner on 22.9.2014 and subsequently, vide order dated 11.11.2014, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Petitioner has sought quashing of present FIR (Annexure P/16) on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and abuse of process of law because :-

(i). it was the Society who had taken the decision for cancellation of plot and allotment of the same and the petitioner was Secretary of the Society and in his capacity as Secretary, he ha