J.B.GARG, J. - (1.) HARINDER Kumar Gulati has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and challenged FIR No. 310 dated 2.10.92 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt. for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that Harmesh Chand owned truck No. HNX 9050 together with its national permit. He deputed Harinder Kumar Gulati, the petitioner to get it renewed from the Regional Transport Authority, Ambala Cantt. However, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ambala Cantt. was unhappy and he straight way lodged the present FIR as if the petitionr approached for renewal without authority from Harmesh Chand, the owner. During investigation, there is an affidavit of Harmesh Chand son of Nar Singh, resident of Dera Bassi who has specifically deposed that he was the owner of truck No. NHX 9050 and he also possessed a national permit and only for the purpose of its renewal, Harinder Kumar Gulati the present petitioner was deputed by his driver. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is not essential that an owner himself go to the Registering Authority for the purposes of renewal whether it is private vehicle or even a public carrier. Sometimes the owner is old or infirm or for any other reason, there is no bar if he deputes any particular person seeking renewal. In the case in hand, it is not that the petitioner contemplated to get the vehicle registered or transferred in his own name or in the name of any person other than the true owner. The learned counsel for the State of Haryana could not find out as to how the petitioner deceived the complainant to deliver any property or valuable. The plea of Harmesh Chand, the owner had been that his own driver placed the signatures on the application (Annexure P-2) for renewal and not Harinder Kumar Gulati.
(3.) IN N.S. Steels Private Ltd. v. The Union of India, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 473 : 1986(1) CLR 661, where there were allegations that the bank guarantees were either procured fraudulently or were forged and no important evidence was found to support such allegation, the FIR for offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was quashed. Attention ha also been invited to Pardeep Kumar v. Hakam Lal Sarhadi, 1992(2) CLR 5, where the allegation made was that Pardeep Kumar obtained a wrong domicile certificate to procure dealership of Petrol Pump from the reserved category, the name, parentage and the college leaving certificate etc. of aforesaid Pardeep Kumar were found to be in order and the prosecution launched for offences under Sections 420, 463, 468 and 470 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, was quashed.;