Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 3, 2010 Parveen Ratra ........Petitioner Versus Viney Kumar Singh and another ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C') for quashing of the complaint case No.363 of 15.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) titled as “Viney Kumar Singh vs. Parveen Ratra and another” as vide order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-2), whereby petitioner was erroneously ordered to be summoned to face aforesaid frivolous criminal case and vide order dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure P-3), whereby the revision filed by petitioner against order dated 15.11.2007 was dismissed. The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) read as under :- “..........1. That the accused no.1 is a property dealer in Gurgaon and on 20.12.2000 the complainant visited the accused no.1 for purchase of a plot, then the accused no.1 told him that there is a plot in M/S. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 2 Ltd. in the area of Sushat lok, Gurgaon and the said plot is in the name of accused no.2 and he had obtained GPA from the accused and the accused no.1 has also paid whole amount to the accused no.2. 2. That the accused no.1 told the price of plot as Rs.1,25,000/- and the accused no.2 was also present on 13.01.2001 and accused no.1 asked the complainant to pay Rs.75,000/- as advance and then the complainant had given a cheque of Rs.75,000/- in the name of accused no.1. The complainant asked the accused give receipt, then both the accused told that receipt will be given when full payment will be paid and an agreement will also be executed by the accused no.1 in favour of the complainant and agreed to receive the balance payment at the time of receipt of the allotment letter from the company, as the draw has been already announced. 3. That when the company issued allotment letter then the complainant asked the accused no.1 to prepare the agreement and then on 22.05.2003 an agreement was executed by the accused no.1 in favour of the complainant and the complainant paid the full payment to both the accused and accordingly, the receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- was issued by the accused no.2. 4. That the accused did not transfer the plot in the name of the complainant and delayed on one pretext or another and then on 30.05.2006 the complainant visited the accused no.1 and 2 Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 3 at that time the witness Prem Kishore and Muneesh Singh were also witnessed on the agreement and receipt and asked the accused no.1 to transfer the plot in his name. The accused no.1 said I am not the owner of the plot and accused no.2 said I have issued special power of attorney in favour of accused no.1 so both will not transfer the plot in your name and they both beaten the complainant by fists and kick blows in front of Prem Kishore and Muneesh and also threatened the complainant that they will kill the complainant if the complainant came back again to them. 5. That the accused have committed offence punishable under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B/323/506 IPC in collusion with each other, as the accused no.1 entered into agreement for which he has no power and both the accused have grabbed Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may kindly be summoned u/ss 420/406/467/468/471/120B/323/506 IPC and punished accordingly.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 4 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/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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 5 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 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 complainant reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The complainant in support of his Crl. Misc. No. M- 36877 of 2009 6 complaint has led preliminary evidence. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner had executed an agreement in favour of the complainant and in turn complainant had paid Rs.1,25,000/- to both the accused, but the receipt was issued by accused Baljeet Singh. However, the plot was not transferred in the name of the complainant. On 30.5.2006 when the complainant visited both the accused and asked them to transfer the plot in his name, he was beaten by the accused and was also threatened that he would be killed. At the time of passing of the summoning order, the trial court was only required to see as to whether a prima facie case against the accused was made out or not. Since the complainant had led preliminary evidence in support of his case, the learned Magistrate rightly passed the summoning order. No ground for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 3, 2010 JUDGE Anand