Chandigarh, Feb. 22 -- A local court has dismissed an application filed by a city-based dentist, Dr Mohit Dhawan, seeking registration of an FIR against Chandigarh Police officials. Dr Dhawan had moved an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking directions to the police to register a case for offences, including forgery, extortion, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy. Dr Dhawan claimed that a US national, Gertrude D'Souza, approached his clinic for dental implant treatment in 2017. According to him, the patient made a partial payment after undergoing surgery and later began demanding a refund. He alleged that she boasted of high-level connections, including senior police officials and even Rakesh Asthana, the then special director of the CBI. He further alleged that between September 2017 and January 2018, police officials repeatedly visited his clinic, summoned him without proper documentation and pressured him to refund the amount.He also alleged fabrication and manipulation of complaint records, pointing to discrepancies in dates and modes of receipt of the complainant's representation. He contended that a forged complaint tracking slip was provided to him under the RTI Act and that a false FIR for cheating dated March 19, 2018 was subsequently registered against him at the Sector 19 police station. Based on findings from the Police Complaints Authority, which had recommended a departmental inquiry against certain officers for "faulty" investigation, he sought registration of a fresh FIR against the officials concerned. Opposing the plea, the prosecution submitted that the FIR was already under trial and that multiple complaints had been received from the foreign national against Dr Dhawan. After examining the record, the court held that the existence of complaints from the foreign national was borne out by the police challan and accompanying documents. The court noted that the mere absence of a complaint number or date on certain notices did not, by itself, establish the commission of offences such as forgery or conspiracy. Regarding the Police Complaints Authority recommending departmental inquiry against inspector Ashwani Attri and investigating officer Balwinder Singh, the court observed that it couldn't be the basis for concluding they committed any offence. The court noted that allegations of extortion and intimidation were raised only in 2019 after the FIR was registered against him and appeared to be an "afterthought". The court held that there were no grounds to direct the registration of a fresh FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure....