Crl.Misc. No. M-14040 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14040 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26 , 2011 Paramjit Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal,Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 --- Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 5 dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure P2) under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR shows that no criminal offence was made out. FIR in question has been lodged by the complainant as the suit filed by the petitioner against son of complainant qua recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt had been decreed in favour of the petitioner. Crl.Misc. No. M-14040 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned State counsel and counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioner had cheated the complainant and had taken the tractor from the complainant but had failed to pay the sale consideration to the complainant. 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 the FIR in brief, is that the petitioner was running the business of tractors. About five years back, complainant had purchased a tractor from Kala Singh for a sum of ` 64,000/-. However, the complainant had sold the said tractor to the petitioner for the amount it was purchased by him as he did not want to keep the tractor. The petitioner had, however, failed to pay the sale consideration. 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 Crl.Misc. No. M-14040 of 2010 (O&M) 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. (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 Crl.Misc. No. M-14040 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that the alleged sale of the tractor by the complainant to the petitioner was done orally. Admittedly, the tractor in question was not registered in the name of the complainant. In these circumstances, a perusal of the FIR does not reveal that any criminal offence is made out in this case against the petitioner. It appears that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, as recovery suit filed by the petitioner against the son of the complainant was decreed vide Crl.Misc. No. M-14040 of 2010 (O&M) 5 judgment dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure P1). Petitioner had filed the said suit of recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 2.6.2001. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly this petition is allowed. FIR No.5 dated 6.1.2010 registered under Section 420 I.P.C. at Police Station Sadar, Mansa and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 26 , 2011 arya