A.B.CHAUDHARI,J - (1.) In these two petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.26 dated 26.01.2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. CRM-M-13784 of 2013 was filed by Rajat Rajendra Singhal while CRM-M-37302 of 2015 filed by Rajender Singla, Dheeraj Singla and Suneel Kumar Gupta.
(2.) FACTS Respondent No.2-Ram Chander Singh son of Sh. Sube Singh, resident of Village Karala, Delhi had lodged the above said FIR with the Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, on 26.01.2012. In the FIR, which was sent through dak from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra to the aforesaid Police Station, he stated that in the year 2004-2005, Municipal Committee Shopping Complex was to be constructed in Thanesar and M/s Sarvottam Construction Company had applied for the work by tender. He stated that when M/s Sarvottam Construction had applied for enlistment, it came to know that the experience of Sh. Dharampal, one of the partner of the firm, was not sufficient to get Class-I contractor certificate and therefore, the firm included Sunil Kumar Gupta for obtaining Class-I enlistment certificate and thus, cheated the Government by preparing two separate partnerships for one firm including the name of Sunil Kumar Gupta. This fact is corroborated from the Power of Attorney dated 01.01.2005 in which there is only 4 partners except Sunil Kumar Gupta. The allegations were therefore, that another partnership deed was prepared in order to get the said certificate. It was thus, alleged that there was a fraud and forgery. The complaint appears to have been sent by respondent No.2, who is the resident of Delhi and the same was received by Police Station City Thanesar through dak from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. After registration of the offences, investigation was completed by the police. It is this FIR, which is under challenge in the present both these petitions. SUBMISSIONS Learned counsel for the petitioners, in both these petitions, submitted that the FIR out and out is false and having no connection with respondent No.2 who was merely a driver of respondent No.3 who had family dispute with one of the petitioners. Respondent No.2 is a resident of Delhi and has absolutely, no connection to lodge FIR in relation to the work of construction of Municipal Committee Shopping complex at Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel then submitted that in respect of the work in the year 2004-2005, the FIR was got lodged in the year 2011 as aforesaid which is self-showed that the same was delayed and bogus. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even otherwise reading of the FIR, nowhere makes out any case for registration of FIR as aforesaid. He relied on the several grounds taken in the present petition for quashing the FIR. He, then contended that now respondent No.2-Ram Chander Singh son of Sube Singh has also filed an affidavit dated 08.09.2015 in this Court by way of reply to these petitions that he does not want to pursue the present FIR and has no objection, if the same is quashed by this Court since respondent No.3-Dheeraj Garg son of Krishan Kumar Garg has arrived at a compromise and also filed reply by way of affidavit that he has no concern with the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that for the above reasons, the FIR and consequent proceedings are required to be quashed in both these petitions.
(3.) Learned State counsel invited my attention to the reply by way of affidavit of Satish Gautam, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Kurukshetra and contended that investigation was conducted in fair and impartial manner and report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted against the petitioners and co-accused in the concerned Court. Learned State counsel , therefore, prayed for dismissal of these petitions.;