Dr.Pradeep Mahendru vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 September, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dr.Pradeep Mahendru vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 September, 2010

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

Crl. Misc. No.M-27617 of 2010                                       [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                               CHANDIGARH.



                                Crl. Misc. No. M-27617 of 2010

                                Date of Decision: September 30, 2010

Dr.Pradeep Mahendru

                                     .....Petitioner

            Vs.

State of Haryana and another

                                     .....Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                        -.-


Present:-   Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana

            Mr. D.S. Adlakha, Advocate for respondent No.2.


                  -.-

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner seeks the quashing of FIR No.28 dated January 14, 2009 under Sections 457, 380, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, registered at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner alongwith his family members had forcibly Crl. Misc. No.M-27617 of 2010 [2] broken the locks of the godown in possession of respondent No.2 besides threatening respondent No.2.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the story of respondent No.2 has been found to be false and that it is a dispute between landlord and tenant, tenant having falsely implicated the landlord and owner of the godown. He submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for injunction against the respondent in which an interim injunction had been granted on January 12, 2009 but on January 14, 2009, an FIR had been registered as a counterblast to the interim injunction order passed in favour of the petitioner. Counsel has referred to the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the civil Court claiming that the said report belies the allegations in the FIR.

I have considered all the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that disputed question of fact regarding the possession/ dispossession of respondent No.2 and trespassing is to be determined which is not within the ambit of the preview of the powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can always take the benefit of report of the Local Commissioner; order of the civil Court and the report of the investigating officer finding the allegations of the complainant to be partly false.

In view of the plausible defence available with the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition with a direction that all the pleas taken up in this petition could be raised by the petitioner before the trial Court to seek order of acquittal. In peculiar Crl. Misc. No.M-27617 of 2010 [3] circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case the petitioner moves an application for exemption from personal appearance after the framing of charge/ charges, if any, the same would be allowed subject to the petitioner furnishing an affidavit to the effect that he will have no objection in case the evidence is recorded by exempting his personal appearance but in presence of his counsel as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. and that he will comply with any condition imposed by the trial Court.

It will be appreciated in case the trial is concluded within a period of one year by giving a fair opportunity to the respondent to produce his defence.

September 30, 2010                                   (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                                JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court