132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17721-2025 DECIDED ON: 24.04.2025 AYUSH BHALLA .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Mehdiratta, Mr. Arnav Ghai and Mr. R.S. Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner. for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab Mr. Viren Sibbal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.3. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.36 dated 10.03.2025 under Section 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). Perusal of the affidavit filed by Jatinder Pal Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (West), Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, shows that the cancellation report has been prepared and the same has also been presented before the Magistrate on 11.04.2025. The relevant extract of affidavit reads as under:- “That during the course of investigation, the petitioner submitted an application to the Commissioner of Police, challenging the MEENU 2025.04.25 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17721-2025 -2- registration of the present FIR on the ground that the complainant had concealed material facts in her complaint, which formed the basis for the registration of the present FIR. The investigation into the petitioner's complaint was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (West), Ludhiana, and it was revealed that the complainant had filed multiple complaints regarding the same set of allegations, including the following: (I) Complaint No. 20170019 dated 03.01.2017 to the ADGP, NRI Wing. 5 Punjab. The investigation in respect of the present complaint was conducted by the Station House Officer, NRI Wing, Ludhiana. During the course of investigation, it was found-based on the report provided by the Revenue Department-that the complainant had purchased land comprising the Khasra numbers as mentioned in her complaint, and the said land is bounded by a canal on both sides.In light of this, the complainant was advised to approach the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of her property to ascertain the actual location and boundaries. It was further found that the dispute raised by the complainant pertains to civil rights and title, and no ingredients of any cognizable offence were made out. Therefore, it was concluded that the matter is purely of a civil nature, and police intervention is not warranted. Accordingly, the complaint was disposed of. II. Complaint No. 2300141 dated 11.04.2022 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana; III. Complaint No. 215946 dated 16.08.2023 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana; IV. Complaint No. PGD 328645 dated 04.04.2024 to the Director General of Police, Punjab; V. Complaint No. 1334 dated 08.08.2024 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. After thorough investigation, it was found that the complainant had deliberately suppressed material facts, including the pendency of multiple complaints against the petitioner Ayush Bhalla before many higher officials, and failed to disclose details of ongoing court MEENU 2025.04.25 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17721-2025 -3- proceedings. Furthermore, the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support the allegation that the petitioner Ayush Bhalla had forged any documents.In view of the above, and upon consideration of all relevant facts and material collected during the investigation, a cancellation report in respect of FIR No. 36 dated 10.03.2025, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, has been filed. That Cancellation Report was prepared in this case on 10.04.2025 and after due approval from the competent authority the same has also been submitted before the Ld. Magistrate on 11.04.2025 and the next date before the Ld. Magistrate is 29.05.2025.” In the light of above, this Court is the considered view that this petition does not warrant any further interference by this Court, as the same has been rendered infructuous. Hence the petition stands off, as having been rendered infructuous. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 24.04.2025 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MEENU 2025.04.25 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document