Ghan Shyam Sarda through his Attorney Sh. Brij Mohan Vyas vs State of Punjab

K.C. Gupta, J.—This Crl. Petition is directed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 184/96 dated 14.11.1996, Annexure P-1, under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at Police Station Chhehrata, Amritsar, Punjab, and subsequent proceedings thereto.

Briefly stated, the facts are that 192 bales of wool were entrusted to M/s. Wool Combers of India Limited for combining by Birla VXL Limited. It is alleged that bales were entrusted at the instance of the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, C.S. Jalan, Chairman and A. Ganguly, Chief Executive-cum-Manager of the accused Company. The petitioner was named in the complaint on the allegation, that subsequently he came to know that the petitioner, Ghan Shyam Sarda, was the major share holder of the Company and even he had told to the complainant, D. Goenka, that he had 51% share in M/s. Wool Combers of India Limited. There is no documentary evidence on file that the petitioner had 51% share in M/s. Wool Combers of India Limited. Since, it is a private limited Company registered with the Registrar of Companies, so, if the petitioner had 51% share, then the record must be available with the said Registrar. The petitioner has also placed on file the certificate issued by the Registrar of the Companies which is on pages 44-45 of the file, which shows that the petitioner is neither the Director, nor, is holding any other position in the said Company during the period 1994 to December 1997. Therefore, prima-facie, there is no question that the petitioner was connected in any manner with the firm. The goods were sent to M/s. Wool Combers of India Limited not on the assurance or instance of the petitioner but on the assurance and instance of Mr. C.S. Jalan, Chairman and A. Ganguly, Chief Executive-cum-Manager. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed mis-appropriation of 192 bales of wool belonging to the complainant.

The Investigating Officer, Mr. Lakhbir Singh, ASI of P.S. Chheharta, Amritsar, is present in person in Court. He has given in writing that the complainant has made a request for withdrawal of the complaint and further after investigation, untraced report was written on 6.1.1999. The photostat copy of the same has been placed on file.

In view of these facts, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner are misuse of the process of law. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings thereto, qua the petitioner, are quashed. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.