IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-15854 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 30, 2011 Rajinder Kumar @ Baljinder @ Babbu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing FIR No.22 dated 21.2.2008 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station, Samrala District Ludhiana; order of framing charge and chargesheet dated 9.2.2010 (Annexure P-5). 2. The short contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that co-accused of the petitioner, Harpreet Kaur, who is Crl. Misc. No. M-15854 of 2010 [2] none other but Bhabhi (sister-in-law) of the petitioner, approached this Court for quashing FIR vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-10855 of 2008, alongwith Baldev Singh. The petition qua Harpreet Kaur has been allowed vide decision dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P-4). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Harpreet Kaur, in so much as, no allegation has been made even against the petitioner in the FIR or in the challan. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant contends that case is at the evidence stage. Statement of Lakhwinder Singh has been recorded as PW-1. 5. In that context, examination in chief portion of the statement has been produced in Court. It has been pleaded that specific allegations have been made by PW-1 in Court and therefore, FIR and proceedings could not be quashed at this stage. 6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 7. Specific allegations have been made only against Baldev Singh in regard to the incidents of February and April 2002 of either taking money or demanding money on the pretext of sending persons abroad. A vague allegation has been made to the effect that Baldev Singh alongwith his family members has cheated Crl. Misc. No. M-15854 of 2010 [3] the complainant. In the arguments addressed, it has been contended that because there are allegations against family of Baldev Singh, the family would include the petitioner and Harpreet Kaur. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any portion, even from the documents accompanying the chargesheet, to say that there are specific allegations against the petitioner so as to conclude that, prima facie, an offence has been committed by the petitioner also. If a case in regard to making allegations of commission of criminal offence is required to be set up, there ought to be specific allegations and incriminating material pleaded against a specific person. Vague allegations against a body of a person by way of saying that “family” of a person was involved in commission of crime, would not imply that each member of the family had committed the offence. 9. Before proceeding further, note of relevant portion of decision dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P-4) rendered by this Court in the Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-10855 of 2008 (Harpreet Kaur & another vs. State of Punjab & another), referred to above, needs to be taken wherein the following has been held:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the allegations against the petitioners. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned his name is specifically mentioned in the FIR merely because in earlier case, he was allegedly present at the time of delivery of money to two other accused, is not sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that no offence is made out against petitioner No. 2. Therefore, petition qua petitioner No. 2 is Crl. Misc. No. M-15854 of 2010 [4] dismissed. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, a careful perusal of FIR indicates that there are no specific allegations against her to have received money from the complainant. It has been informed that petitioner No. 1 is daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2. She has been falsely implicated in a case to pressurize petitioner No. 2 to return ill-goten money by him by cheating respondent No. 2 – Lakhwinder Singh. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against petitioner No. 1 will an abuse of process of law. FIR No. 22 dated 21/2/2008 under Sections 420 IPC registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana, against petitioner No. 1 is hereby quashed. So ar as Petitioner No. 2 and other accused named in the FIR are concerned, the law will take its own course.” 10. Perusal of the above extracted portion indicates that there were no allegations against Harpreet Kaur in the FIR. Allegations were against Baldev Singh and therefore, FIR and consequent proceedings against Harpreet Kaur have been quashed vide decision of this Court rendered on 6.5.2009. No difference or distinguishing factor can be traced so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Allegations are in identical terms viz. to the effect that Baldev Singh and his family cheated the complainant. No cognizance of such a vague allegation can be taken so as to implicate the entire family. No specific allegation against the petitioner has been made in the FIR or in the statements recorded during investigation. 11. Continuance of proceedings, in such circumstances, against the petitioner shall cause failure of justice and abuse of process of law and process of Court. Considering the Crl. Misc. No. M-15854 of 2010 [5] totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. 12. FIR No.22 dated 21.2.2008 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station, Samrala District Ludhiana and consequent proceedings, qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 30, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?