Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kalpana Vats vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045108
122 CRM-M-15182-2024 2024:PHHC:045108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15182-2024
Decided On: 02.04.2024
KALPANA VATS
.....PETITIONER(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENT(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR No.192 dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 of
IPC registered at Police Station Khol, District Rewari.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that a false and
frivolous case has been registered against the petitioner at the behest of
complainant/respondent No.2. The FIR in question annexed as Annexure P-1 is
in fact a result of manipulation and afterthought, with an oblique motive by the
complainant to arm twist the petitioner into paying money to the complainant.
Rather, the true facts of the case had been intentionally twisted by the
complainant solely for monetary gains.
3. It has been further argued that in the month of September, 2019, the
complainant through Satyavir s/o Sube Singh, with whom he has friendly
relations, requested for a friendly loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. After
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045108
CRM-M-15182-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:045108
much persuasion from his friend Satyavir, the petitioner agreed to help the
complainant and paid her an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. However, on
22.07.2021, an FIR was registered against the petitioner with a concocted story
that the petitioner along with Satyavir s/o Sube Singh had received Rs.1,00,000/-
and Rs.50,000/- respectively on the pretext of providing a government job to the
complainant. Therefore, it was evident that the instant FIR was completely
vexatious and liable to be quashed on the ground that the complainant had made
material concealment in the FIR in question.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
5. Before proceedings further, it would be opposite to reproduce the
FIR in question, which is as under:-
Statement of complainant, Satyavir s/o Sube Singh
resident of Ningani was, got Rs.50,000/- from my house. He brought
it and under false pretenses in the name of a government job, he
introduced me to a girl named Kalpana and deposited Rs.10,000/- in
her account and sent me to Delhi and kept giving rounds for one
months. Sir, I had complained against them on 18.01.2021, no
action is being taken against these people.
6. No doubt, vide powers have been conferred upon this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, the same must be exercised with a great deal of
restraint and circumspection. The parameters which must be considered by this
Court while considering a petition for quashing of an FIR have been squarely
settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a Catena of judgments. At this stage,
only a prima facie case has to be seen and this Court while exercising its powers
under 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be expected to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045108
CRM-M-15182-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:045108
the allegations levelled in the FIR. The arguments raised by the petitioner qua his
false implication cannot thus, be delved into at this stage as it would be a matter
of trial. Prima facie there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioner of
having lured the complainant into parting with Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-
respectively on the pretext of providing her a government job. The petitioner
would get ample opportunity to lead evidence in support of his case and
demolish the case of the prosecution during trial.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
9. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall
not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
02.04.2024 JUDGE
Aman Dua
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
