Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.07.2010 Jasdev Singh son of Late Kehar Singh, r/o Bhagwanpura Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Khanna, District Ludhiana. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 154, dated 26.05.06, under Section 409 IPC, P.S. Payal, District Khanna, District Ludhiana, and, all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, while posted, as ASI, in Police Station Payal, was entrusted with the investigation of criminal cases titled as 'State Vs. Lovepreet Singh son of Malkiat Singh, Caste Majbi, r/o village Majatri, P.S. Kharar (Ropar), bearing FIR No. 96 dated 28.05.02, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, P.S. Payal', 'State Vs. Sewa Singh son of Balbir Singh, Caste SC, r/o Sahibana, P.S. Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 2 Sahnewal, District Ludhiana', bearing FIR No. 112 dated 16.06.02, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, P.S. Payal, and, 'State Vs. Gurdeep Singh alias Dulla s/o Nirmal Singh, Caste Jat, r/o Jahangir, P.S. Payal', bearing FIR No. 133 dated 17.06.02, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, P.S. Payal After investigating the aforesaid cases, he prepared fake road certificates, showing that, the challans, in the same, had been presented, in the Court, though, as per the statement of Makhan Singh, Head Constable, on checking of the record of the Court, the challans, in the aforesaid cases, were not found to have been presented. The petitioner, was given a number of dates, to produce the challans/case files of the aforesaid cases, but, he failed, to do so. He, thus, in the capacity of a public servant, misappropriated the said case files. Accordingly, the present FIR, was registered, against him. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, on the allegations of mis-placement or misappropriation of the aforesaid case files, a departmental enquiry, was held, against the petitioner, and, his three years approved service was forfeited. He further submitted that, if the first information report, referred to above, is not quashed, then the petitioner, will be subjected to double jeopardy. He also placed reliance, on Saran Singh Jaggi Vs. State of Punjab, 1995(3), RCR, 624, in support of his contentions. Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 3 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders, as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the FIR, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out, in the FIR, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that in the following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 4 Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 not disclose the commission of any offence, and make out a case against the accused. Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 5 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 a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 6 accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified. 6. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is applicable, to the same, or not. In Saran Singh Jaggi's case (supra), the petitioner, was found to have misappropriated wheat. Departmental enquiry, was held, against him, and, he was, ultimately, exonerated. This Court, held that, continuation of the prosecution, would be an abuse of process of the Court. It may be stated here, that criminal, civil and departmental proceedings, can continue together. The same gamut of facts may give rise, to criminal as well civil, as also departmental proceedings, if a person, accused of an offence, is a public servant. In the instant case, the petitioner, was not exonerated, in the departmental enquiry, but, on the other hand, punishment was awarded, to him, by the competent authority, by forfeiting his three years approved service. The mere fact, that penalty has been imposed upon him, in the departmental enquiry, Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010 7 does not absolve him of the offence of dishonest misappropriation of the case files of the aforesaid cases. Not only this, on account of non- presentation of the challans, in the aforesaid cases, the period of limitation, as provided in Section 468 Cr.P.C., stood expired. Thus, the petitioner, ensured the acquittal of the accused, in the aforesaid cases, without trial, having been conducted, by the trial Court, probably for extraneous considerations. The case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the categories carved in State of Haryana and others' case (supra). Continuance of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings therefrom, do not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-21269 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 8. The Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 27.07.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE