Crl. Misc. No. M- 11720 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 11720 of 2008 Date of Decision:April 21, 2009 Baldev Raj and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana Mr.N.K.Singla, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 53 dated 8.4.2008 under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. Allegations in the FIR against the petitioners are that on 4.4.2008, a call was given to convene a panchayat to effect compromise with regard to the matrimonial dispute of the grand son and grand Crl. Misc. No. M- 11720 of 2008 {2} daughter of the complainant- Mela Ram-respondent No. 2. Petitioners came there and Baldev Raj-petitioner No. 1 pointed a revolver on the person of the complainant and told him that they would kill him. Malak Chand, Bittu and Rajesh Kumar also said that shot be fired. Respondent No. 2 ran away from the spot and was saved by the panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case due to mala fide intention. There was a matrimonial dispute between the grand son and grand daughter of respondent No. 2 and son and daughter of petitioner No. 1-Baldev Raj. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand has submitted that the FIR in question is not liable to be quashed merely on the ground of mala fide . Learned counsel has placed reliance on Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar and others 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 549 in support of his argument. 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:- Crl. Misc. No. M- 11720 of 2008 {3} (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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 11720 of 2008 {4} 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 the 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.” Reading of the FIR prima facie reveals that offence under Section 506 IPC is made out. The grand son and grand daughter of respondent No. 2 were married to the daughter and son of petitioner No. 1. Admittedly, a matrimonial dispute is going between them. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by Priyanka-daughter of petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 2 and others. After investigation of the case, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented in the court. Crl. Misc. No. M- 11720 of 2008 {5} At this stage, no ground for quashing of the FIR in question is made out in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (Supra) as the trial court is already seized of the matter. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 21, 2009 PARAMJIT