IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-4155 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2010 Balwant Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.S.Baidwan, Advocate for the petitioners. Sabina J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing and staying the prosecution proceedings of FIR No.384 dated 19.9.2009, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 452, 456 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Phase-1, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P-1). The case of the complainant as per FIR (Annexure P-1) is as under:- “That the complainant is a respectable an peace loving citizen of the above mentioned address and is retired headmistress and a widow lady of aged about 70 years. That the only son of the complainant resides at America and is permanent citizen over their and the above mentioned property is self acquired property of the complainant who is the sole owner of the said property. That Balwant Singh and his wife whom he use to call Darshna approached the complainant in the last week of April-2007 and requested for the two room set among the four rooms which are built at the first floor of the house for the treatment of his wife as his wife is not having any child for 1 and ½ month for the consideration of Rs.200/- per day as licensee fee and without any written document of any rent deed. That one Balwant Singh and his wife did not vacate the premises on 15.6.2007 the complainant asked to vacate the premises but she was threatened with dire Crl.Misc.No.M-4155 of 2010 consequences even threat to kill and 28.10.2008 Diwali day Balwant Singh and his wife by breaking open the locks of other two rooms forcibly trespass with ulterior motive. That to the utter surprise of the complainant received a notice from Ld. Lower Court. The complainant was shocked to see the Rent Deed which was annexed with the notice and which ever never signed by the complainant. The name of the complainant and her husband both are wrongly mentioned in the rent deed and the signatures which are shown on rent deed had never been signed by the complainant. I only gave him receipt of Rs.6000/- for licensee fee and also one paper for him as residence proof because he purchased a Indica car in July, 2007. That even the stamp papers were not brought by the complainant and the witnesses which are shown in the rent deed are not known to the complainant and the name of the complainant is Kamini Raminder Singh and her husband name is Raminder Singh. A copy of Identity Card issued by election commission of India dated 20.12.06 and gas passbook dated 30.1.1998, copy of bank pass book are enclosed herewith, which shows that a fraud has been played by Balwant Singh and his wife and their associates just to grab the property. That the said rent deed is false and frivolous and fabricated deed which was prepared by the above said accused persons to grab the property of the complainant. That it also comes to the knowledge of the complainant that there are about 10-11 cases pending against said Balwant Singh and recently one case under NDPS Act against Balwant Singh and his wife at P.S. Mohali got registered which shows that the above said persons are history sheetre accused and accused Balwant Signh is a history sheeter of Basta-B under police station patran Patiala and various cases are registered under Arms Act, theft and plan to kill, looting against Balwant Singh shows that Balwant Singh is criminal minded person and complainant is having apprehension that the whole fraud of making false and fabricated rent deed is just to grab the property of the complainant. A copy of rent deed is annexed herewith. It is therefore respectfully prayed that legal action be taken against the 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-4155 of 2010 above said persons and a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC and 452, 456, 457 IPC be registered against the accused persons and necessary protection be granted to the complainant as she has every apprehension, she may be killed. Thanking you-applicant- Kamini Raminder Singh widow of Raminder Singh r/o 122, Phase-3B1, Mohali.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the real dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 was with regard to their tenancy. A false FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioners.The case against the petitioners as per the FIR in question is that they have forged the rent deed. The case of the complainant further is that she has never signed the rent note and in fact had only given a receipt of Rs.6,000/- as licensee fee and she had also given one paper as residence proof because accused wanted to purchase a car. 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 report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-4155 of 2010 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 not 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 of 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 proceedings should be exercised very sparingly an with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-4155 of 2010 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 or the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” The investigation in this case is still going on. There are allegation of forgery against the petitioners. In these circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR at this stage and scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 11.02.2010 sd 5