- (1.) THIS petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR No.131 dated 15.7.2011 registered for offence under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala.
(2.) THE FIR was registered on the complaint by the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner Pardeep Kumar was informer of the Excise and Taxation Department. He had been providing information about the tax evaders and under the Government Policy getting the reward amount. He tempered with the official record by forging his signatures in the log books of the Government vehicles in a single day at one time with the same pen. He appended his signatures over the diesel and petrol bills, by stealing the same. An enquiry was got conducted by the department and vide enquiry report Annexure R -3 the tempering of the official record came to the notice of the department.
(3.) ON the complaint, the police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. It has been submitted by the learned State counsel that challan has been presented against the petitioner and one Mani Ram, who connived with the petitioner in tempering with the Government record and offence of commission of forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that services of the petitioner were terminated on 17.6.1999 and he was served a demand notice dated 2.4.2003 on which reference was made to the Labour Courtcum - Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred as, 'the Tribunal'). In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner asked for certain documents which were not produced by the department and ultimately award was passed on 22.8.2012 in favour of the petitioner. He was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service. As a counter blast, the department has got recorded the FIR against the petitioner. It has been argued that the FIR has been got registered after about 10 -11 years of service of demand notice dated 2.4.2003 raising industrial dispute. In the enquiry conducted by the department the petitioner was never associated. The respondent No.2 has indulged in misuse of the process of law to counter the award passed in favour of the petitioner.;