Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2010 R.P. Mishra ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Y.D. Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the FIR No.210 dated 17.6.2009, under Sections 384,511,294,341,452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Saran, District- Faridabad. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under :- “1. That the complainant is resident of H.No.558 Gali No.5 Sanjay enclave Part-I, NIT Faridabad and a Domestic woman. 2. That the accused resides near the house of complainant and alleged himself to be the head of the street and installed an idol on the vacant plot. Further charge Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) 2 subscription forcefully from the residents of the streets. 3. That on 4.5.2009 at about 10.00 A.M. complainant alongwith her friend namely Kusum w/o Sh. Murari Lal was going to the market for purchase of vegetables. On the way the accused met them and stopped us in the street alleged that you create lot of hindrances in my jobs and never pay subscription. After alleging this, the accused started hurling filthy languages. Thereafter, the complainant and her friend Kusum returned to their home. But the accused followed us and forcibly entered to my house and started using filthy languages there also. When the complainant opposed his act then the accused said that I have located a vacant plot and a temple is to be constructed there and you have to pay subscription for the same otherwise you will be alienated alongwith your family. If you narrated this matter to someone else then you have to face dire consequences. I will not allow to reside in Faridabad. 4. That the accused is having a country made pistol (katta). The wife of the accused also assist him for collecting illegal subscription and both of them have full terror in the street. 5. That the complainant has also submitted a complaint to SSP, Faridabad vide diary No.2035-P dated Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) 3 13.5.2009. (copy is attached herewith). No action was taken on the complaint, hence, the present criminal complaint is being filed before this Hon'ble Court. 6. That in view of the facts mentioned above the accused has committed the offence u/s 384,511,294,341,452,506 IPC. So, it is prayed that the present criminal complaint be sent to SHO Saran u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and further instructions to registered case against the accused and legal action be initiated or the accused be summoned accordingly and be awarded strict punishment. The evidence be produced.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner, wherein respondent No.2 was also one of the defendants. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was a self stayed President of the Mandir and had been forcibly collecting subscription/donation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. In the case of 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) 4 226 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/respondent No.2, 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-1109 of 2010 (O&M) 6 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.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. After investigation challan has been presented against the petitioner and now the case is fixed for framing of the charge. Keeping in view the fact that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, it would not be just and expedient to quash the FIR at this stage. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 18, 2010 JUDGE Anand