Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) PRAYER in the present petition is for quashing of Calendra filed under Section 182 IPC registered vide DDR No.40 dated 15.06.2004 at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that on the application of the petitioner, FIR No.316 was registered on 18.09.2003 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. The allegations were that the car belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No.PB -10AC -5300 had been taken away by some unknown persons on 12.09.2003. In the car a bag containing Rs.20,000/ - and a cylinder was also taken away. On 27.09.2003, the petitioner came to know from the financer of the car that their recovery agents had taken the car. This was inspite of the fact that neither any installment of loan was due nor any notice was issued to the petitioner regarding taking possession of the car. Keeping in view the conduct of the financer, petitioner immediately settled the entire amount of the financer and the matter was compromised. It is stated that it was" specifically mentioned in the compromise that the car was taken by the financer without any fault of the petitioner. The Compromise Deed (Annexure P2) was submitted before the police authorities. The police authorities submitted an untraced report before the learned Magistrate and also filed Calendra against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC. The petitioner was summoned in proceedings under Section 182 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a short argument that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC is nothing else but abuse of process of law. In the present case it is yet to be determined that the complaint made by the petitioner of theft of car was false as those proceedings are yet to attain finality. In the present case, after submission of untraced report by the police authorities before the learned Magistrate, on an objection raised by the petitioner to the untraced report, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.03.2007 had sent the file of the case back to the police for further investigation. According to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner has not received any notice from the police for further enquiry and as per his information after further investigation no report has yet been furnished in the Court as he has not received any notice. The submission is that once the proceedings on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner have not attained finality, the presentation of Calendra against the petitioner is nothing else but abuse of process of law. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, : AIR 1969 SC 355 & this Court in Ajit Singh Lambardar v. State of Punjab,, 1997(1) RCR 70 and in Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana,, 2006(4) RCR(Cri) 718 and in Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab., 2007(3) RCR (Cri) 791.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State could not dispute the factual position stated by the petitioner, as the same being matter of record.;