Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Atma Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Manish Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar, A.A.G, Punjab. Mr.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.33 dated 5.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Khalra District Tarn Taran and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners had taken advance from the complainant and till 31.10.2008, ` 1,64,625/- Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) 2 were due towards the complainant. However, thereafter, the petitioners had stopped bringing their crop to the shop of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the dispute in the present case was purely civil in nature. The complainant could have filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners qua the amount due but no offence of cheating could be said to be made out in the present case. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioners had taken money from the complainant but had failed to return the same and had, thus, cheated the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 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:- Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) 3 (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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) 4 (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.” Section 415 IPC reads as under:- " Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) 5 which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section” Section 420 IPC reads as under:- " Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Thus, in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person has to fraudulently or dishonestly induce another person to delivery property. However, in the present case, a perusal of the FIR does not lead to the inference that any offence of cheating is made out. As per the allegations in the FIR, Atma Singh took some advance from the complainant for his domestic needs. In case the said amount had not been repaid, the remedy available to the complainant is to file a suit for recovery. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.33 Criminal Misc. No.M-20199 of 2010 (O&M) 6 dated 5.6.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Khalra District Tarn Taran and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2011 anita