130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 Ranjit Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS of 2023 praying for quashing of FIR No.363 dated 18.12.2016 registered under Sections 381, 420, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Focal Point Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant- Bhupinder Singh. It was alleged that the complainant is the Manager of M/s Lalli Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dhankari Kalan. Ranjit Singh (petitioner) was working as sales executive in the firm and lateron he resigned on 27.10.2014 with his own consent. It was alleged that petitioner Ranjit Singh purchased a used car from the company for which an amount of Rs.65,000/- was due towards him, but he gave a cheque for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, which on presentation was dishonoured. It was further alleged that Ranjit Singh also cheated other customers in the name of the company for exchanging their old cars with new ones. Thus, it was alleged that the petitioner committed cheating with the company and its customers. Hence, request was made to take legal action against the petitioner. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an employee of M/s Lalli Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dhankari Kalan and had resigned from the post on 27.10.2014, however, he has been clandestinely implicated in the present FIR which was registered on 18.12.2016. He submits that from the allegations made in the FIR, no prima facie case as alleged is made out. Even otherwise, the allegations made are purely of civil nature. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged in a premeditated manner on 18.12.2016, however, till date even challan has not been filed in the present case, which in itself shows that the petitioner is facing agony of the consequences of lodging the FIR from the last about ten years. He has further submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by learned trial Court and he duly joined the investigation. It is contended that he was informed during the investigation that there is no substance in the allegations and cancellation report would be prepared and presented in the Court. Thus, the petitioner was under the impression that the FIR had already been cancelled. It is submitted that the passport of the petitioner had expired on 07.01.2020 and due to the pendency of the FIR, he could not even got his passport renewed. He has relied upon the judgments in Prithi Ram @ Prithvi Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1983(1) RCR (Criminal) 115; Ram Kishan Vs. State of Haryana, 1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 399; Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 890 and Anand Parkash, now Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. The State (UT Chandigarh) and another, 1990(2) RCR(Criminal) 93. He, thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the proceedings in the FIR would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. The State was directed to verify the status of the investigation. Though it was submitted that the investigation is complete, however, the Court concerned was also directed to send its report. Report dated 16.09.2025 of learned JMIC, Ludhiana has been received, which would read that no case pertaining to the said FIR is pending before it.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the FIR in the present case was lodge