Crl.Misc.No.M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 30, 2011 Desh Raj Vinocha and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Raja Sharma,Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Sunil Panwar,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of Complaint dated 5.9.2005 (Annexure P1) under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') titled as “Swaran Singh vs. Desh Raj Vinocha and others.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as no criminal offence was made out against the petitioners. The allegations levelled in the complaint were not believeable. The matter had been duly inquired into by the Police and it was opined that the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against the petitioners were false. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other Crl.Misc.No.M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) 2 hand, has submitted that the petitioners took ` 45,000/- from the complainant asserting that they would get the son of the complainant married to a widowed teacher. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The case of the complainant,as per complaint in question, is that on 13.9.2002, the wife of his son had died. Madan Gopal came to his house to offer his condolence. On 5.1.2003 Madan Gopal, Sudesh and Neeraj again visited the house of the complainant and told him that they knew of a widowed teacher at Hansi, aged about 25 years and they could get the son of the complainant married to her. The accused demanded ` 50,000/- from the complainant to meet the necessary expenses. The complainant paid ` 45,000/- to the accused and promised to pay the balance amount at the time of engagement ceremony. However, the accused had failed to fulfill their promise. The Magistrate sent the matter to the Police for inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. vide Annexure P2. The Station House Officer, Police Station City Rohtak reported after inquiry that there was no truth in the complaint. In fact, Madan Gopal had given money to Des Raj. Des Raj could not return the said money and at the instance of Madan Gopal, the accused had been falsely involved in this case on a complaint filed by the complainant- Swaran Singh. The trial Court vide order dated 8.4.2006 (Annexure P3) dismissed the complaint. The trial Court held that the version of the complainant was improbable and absurd and ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not made out in the present case. The complainant Crl.Misc.No.M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) 3 preferred a revision petition against the said order and vide order dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure P4), the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and held that at this stage, it was only required to be seen as to whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused or not. The Magistrate was not required to establish a detailed inquiry at the initial stage. Thereafter, the trial Court ordered that the accused be summoned to face trial vide order Annexure P5. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and Crl.Misc.No.M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) 4 other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended Crl.Misc.No.M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) 5 with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” Thus, in a given case, where a perusal of the complaint itself does not lead to the inference that any criminal offence is made out, the complaint is liable to be quashed. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P1) reveals that no criminal offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. The complainant had allegedly given ` 45,000/- to the accused in the year 2003 to perform marriage of his son with a widowed teacher. The complaint was filed in the year 2005. The allegations of the complainant that he had paid ` 45,000/- to the accused to perform marriage of his son do not inspire confidence. There was no occasion for the complainant to hand over an amount of ` 45,000/- to the accused without meeting the would be bride. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be Crl.Misc.No.M-11677 of 2009 (O&M) 6 nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint titled as `Swaran Singh vs. Desh Raj Vinocha and others '' dated 5.9.2005 under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC is quashed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 30 , 2011 arya