High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2009
Crl.Misc.No.M-28443 of 2008                                   [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT              OF PUNJAB          AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH.


                                 Criminal Misc. No. M-28443 of 2008

                                 Date of Decision: 3 - 2 - 2009



Surinder Kumar                                          .....Petitioner

                                 v.

State of Punjab                                         .....Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                                 ***

Present:     Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
             Mr.Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab
             for the respondent.

                                 ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of case FIR No.71 dated 18.12.2006

registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala under Sections 409,

420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(e)(f)

and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In the FIR, it has been stated that the stock had been sold one

year prior to the prevailing market rate. An amount of Rs.3,16,95,000/- was

deducted by the Food Corporation of India. What is the role of the

petitioner is subject matter of investigation.

Counsel in the present petition has set out a version that it is
Crl.Misc.No.M-28443 of 2008 [2]

essentially a dispute between Food Corporation of India and Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation and he has nothing to do with the embezzlement

even though paddy was entrusted to him.

Investigation is in progress. Disputed questions of fact are

involved. No ground is made out to entertain the present petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Petitioner

will be at liberty to raise all arguments available to him at appropriate stage

before appropriate authority.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
February 3, 2008. JUDGE

RC