Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Devinder Kaur & others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the summoning order dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) as well as the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure P-1). The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) read as under :- “1. That the complainant is doing the Masson work and also engaging the labour workers to do the work in building. In the month of April, 2008 the accused approached to the complainant with request to do the work in their building situated at House No.HL-99, Phase-1, Mohali, Distt. SAS Nagar. The complainant has given charges of the Masson and Labour worker that charges were accepted by the accused. After the complete settlement of the Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 2 charges the complainant started the work in the premises of the accused in the month of May 2008. 2. That the complainant has engaged the labourers to do the work in the building of the accused. The construction work of the building run in continuous without any break. During the work in progress in the building the accused No.1 has paid Rs. 5000.00/- in the month of May,2008 and also paid Rs.5000.00/- in the month of June, 2008. The accused told the complainant that all the payment will be paid after completion of the work Ground Floor and 1st Floor. The work of the Ground Floor and First Floor was completed in the Ist week August 2008. the complainant demanded the labour charges of the work done in the premises of the accused. The accused asked to the complainant that they will make the payment as per schedule list rate, on this the complaint prepared the schedule rate list and submitted the bill on 12.8.2008 to the accused and asked to pay the amount of Rs.1,92,500/- for the construction work. The accepted the bill and give the assurance amount will be paid in evening time on 12.8.2008. In the evening of 12.8.2008 the accused persons asked the complainant to take the amount on 13.8.2008. 3. That on 13.8.2008 when the complainant and his labourers visited the house of the accused at 9.30 AM to do the work, then the accused person started threatening to the complainant and his labourers to face dire consequence if the Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 3 work will done by the complainant and also used the abusive language. The complainant demanded the charges of the work which was done. The accused person openly refused to make the payment and also not allowed to lift the tools from the premises. The intention of the accused person from the very beginning was dishonest to cheat him by giving false allurement to complete the construction work. 4. That the accused person have also retained the tools of the Masson work, Hand Cutter Machine, Stone eraser machine, 40 Fattas of Shuttering, one iron hammer, 10 Balians and other articles. The value of the property which was entrusted by the accused are as under: 1 Hand Cutter Machine Rs.3500.00 2 Stone Eraser Machine Rs.8500.00 3 40 Fattas Rs.6000.00 4 Iron Hammer Rs.100.00 5 10 Ballian Rs.1000.00 6 Masson tools Rs.2000.00 Total Rs.21,100-00 5. That the accused person misappropriated the property of the complainant for their own use and it is being used by the other labourers, whose are recently engaged by the accused. The value of the property will be diminished in the hand of the accused. The accused have committed the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused person was having the dishonest intention to misappropriate the property of the complainant. The accused person also cause damage to the property of the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 4 to the extent of Rs.20,000.00. 6. That the complainant has moved an application before the police, Police Station, Phase-1 Mohali to take the action, but till date no action has been taken yet. Hence this application. 7. That the accused person have committed the offence with in the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the accused are liable to be tried in accordance with law. 8. That the complainant is being filed within the limitation. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that complaint may kindly be allowed and the police authority be directed to enquire into matter, registered the case under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code." After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 5 of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 6 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 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 complaint reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. The petitioners had failed to pay the amount in question to the complainant although, the complainant had completed the work of construction entrusted to him and had submitted the bill. Complainant in support of his complaint had led the preliminary evidence. On the basis of the evidence, led by the complainant, summoning Crl. Misc. No. M- 20924 of 2010 (O&M) 7 order was passed. At the stage of passing the summoning order, the trial Court was merely required to see as to whether prima facie case was made out against the petitioners or not. Since the complainant had led his preliminary evidence in support of his case, the learned trial Court rightly held that there was prima facie evidence to proceed against the petitioners and passed the summoning order. In these circumstances, no ground for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) July 23, 2010 JUDGE Anand