Criminal Misc. No.M- 12538 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 12538 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.5.2009 Vikas Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Vikas Kumar under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 27.4.2005, under Sections 420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) as well as all consequential proceedings including the order dated 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-6) and the judgment dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-7). Prosecution story, in brief, is that a secret informer informed ASI Manohar Lal that one Non Resident Indian ('NRI' for short) has been pickpocketed. The Visa Credit Card of the NRI was Criminal Misc. No.M- 12538 of 2009 2 removed by the petitioner along with Amarjit Singh and Sonu. Thereafter, they purchased goods from the showroom by using Visa Credit Card by putting forged signatures of the NRI. On the basis of the said information, the petitioner was apprehended and vide recovery memo (Annexure P-2) a watch taken from the Titan showroom by using the Visa Credit Card was recovered from the right pant pocket of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case merely on the basis of the recovery memo. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M- 12538 of 2009 3 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 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. Criminal Misc. No.M- 12538 of 2009 4 (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 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.” In the present case, FIR in question was registered on 27.4.2005. Thereafter, challan was presented. Charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner and his co-accused by the trial Criminal Misc. No.M- 12538 of 2009 5 Court on 28.9.2006 (Annexure P-6) finding prima facie case against them. The said order, vide which charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner and his co-accused (Annexure P-6) was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition, the same has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Ludhiana vide order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner and his co-accused had made purchases by using the Visa Credit Card of the NRI. The trial is already in progress and charge has been framed against the petitioner finding prima facie case against him and his co-accused. Since, the trial Court is seized of the matter, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 07, 2009 anita