478 9 Crlllllisc No Me6394of2004 1 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB S HARYANA CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc No M6394 of 2004 Date of Decision August 29 2011 Karam Singhand another Petioners 1 Ll4 Versus 0 0 C5 I State of Punjab Respondent Z C Coram Honble MrJustice Sabina I Presentl MrBains Advocate for the petitioner C MVishal MunjalAdditional Advocate General Punjab Z MrPHundalSeniorAdvocate with MrDheerajMahajanAdvocatefor respondentNo 00 e VA7 Z Sabina J Qm Petitioners have filed this petition under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1973 seekingquashingof FlR No 242 dated 42003 Annexure Pl 1under Sections 420468471467 and 120eB of the Indian Penal Code for shon IPC registeredat Police Station Division No Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedingsarisingtherefrom 4 Learned counsel for the petitionershas submitted that the criminal proceedingsinitiated againstthe petioners were a Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 479 61 Crlvlisc No Me6394of2004 2 completeabuse of process of Iaw The petitionerswho 1 were minors in the year 19534 were beingproceededagainst in the year 2003 qua allegedforgerydone in the year 195354 Petitioner No2 has died duringthe pendencyof the petition Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondentNO4 on the other hand have submitted that the petitionershad used the forgeddocuments in civil Iitigationand C2 hence the crimiinal proceedingswere Iiable to continue against 0 0 them I After hearingthe Iearnedcounsel for the patties am C0 of the opinionthat the instant petitiondeserves to be allowed Z It has been held in State of Haniana Vs Bhaian Lal 1992 SupplISupremeCoun Cases 335the Apex Court has held as undec C3 The followingcategoriesof cases can be stated by way Z of illustration wherein the extraordinarypower under f Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 5 482CrC Can be exercised bythe HighCourt either to Z preventabuse of the process of any couit or otherwiseto Om secure the ends of justicethoughit may not be possible to Iaydown any precise clearlydefined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelinesor rigidformulae and to give an exhaustive Iist of myriadkinds of cases wherein such power should be exercisec l IWherethe allegationsmade in the first information reportOr the even if theyaretaken ttheir face value and accepted in their entiretydo not prima Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 480 4d CrlMisc No Me6394of2004 3 facie Constituteany offence or make out a Case against the accused 21Wherethe allegationsin the first informationreportand other materials if any accompanyingthe FlR do not disclose a cognizableoffence justifyingan investigation by policeofficers under Section 151 Iofthe Code except under an order of a Magistratewithin the purview of 0 Section 15521of the Code 0 0 31Wherethe uncontroverted allegationsmade in the FlR or complaintand the evidence collected in suppottofthe C5 I same do10 disclose the commission of anyence and make out a case againsthe accused Z 41Where the allegationsin the FlR do not constitute a r cognizableoffence but constitute only a norcognizable offence no investigation is permittedby a Police Officer 0 Z without an order of Magistrateas contemplatedunder CtO Section 15521of the Code 7 51Wherethe made in the FIR complaint Z are so absurd and inherentlyimprobableon the basis of 11 which no prudentperson can ever reach a justconclusion that there is sufficient groundfor proceedingagainstthe accused 61Wherethere is an express Iegalbar engraftedin any of the proviions of the Code or the concerned Act Jnder whicha criminal i institutec to the institution and continuance of the andlor where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 481 64 CrlMisc NO M4394 of2004 4 providingefficacious redress for the grievanceof aggrievedparty 711Nhere a criminalproceedingis manifestlyattended with malafide andlor where the proceedings IS instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to 1 spitehimtiueto privateand personalgrudge We also givea note of caution to the eHect that the 0 0 powerof quashinga criminal should be exercised very sparinglyand with and C5 that too in the rarest of rare cases that the court will not be justifiedin embarking upon an enquiryas to Z m the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the mSde ih the FlR or the coml5laint and that I the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer C1 Z an arbitrary jurisdiction on the coutt to act accordingto 4t oo its whim or caprice Il 4t 7 A perusalof the FlR 64nnexurePl l reveals that the Z date and time of occurrence was the year 195354 DDR No Il dated 42003 was registeredat 50 n Thereafter the FlR in questionw8s registered The case of the complainantin brief is that he was resident and proprietorof villageChachowal The common Iand of the villagehad toeenrecorded in the revenue record as owned by Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kvat in the column of ownershipand e vlaqboojaMalkan in the column of possessionof the jamabandis for the Iast many decades The Iitigation qua the Iand in disputewas Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 482 CrMisc No M40394 of2004 5 pendingbetween the accused and the Gram Panchayat The accused claimed their rightsqua the suit Iand on the bais of entries Ill the column of cultivation of jamabandisfor the years 194445 and 195354 The said revenue record was producedby the accused before the Divisional DeputyDirectorlmmCollector Jalandhar The case was decided againstthe accused However in appe8lthe 1 Joint Development Commissioner RDl Chandigarh passedthe order r in favour of the petitioners When the complainantand other 0 CA0 inhabitantsof the IiillageChachowal consulted the revenue record I theyfound out that the entriesin the jamabandisfor the year 194445 C9 I and 195354 Parat Sarkarlhad been tamperedwith The entries in the column of cultivation from l4aqbooja Malkan has been changed Z 54 i to r4alooka Hisedar The complainantgot the copies of the C jamabandies Parat Patwar for the year 194445 and 195354 and the I entries were correct and were in consonance with the previous Z entries in the jamabandisin the columnof cultivation The accused CQ hadforgedand fabricatedthe revenue record which had been keptin m the Office of the DeputyCommissioner Jalandhar with a motive to Z grabthe shamlat Iand of the village The case ofthe petitionersis that their ancestors were in possessionof the suit Iand from the year 1944 till 1992 Due to in advettance the entryqua Hissedar was not reflected in the revenue record after consolidationin the year 1960 The entries in column No 5 of jamabandifor the year 194445 was recorded as Wakboo Mehru son of Malooka Hissedar Similar entries continued in the jamabandifor the year 195354 195758 After consolidation the J entries in colurnn No were changedas Karam Singhson of Mehar Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 483 1A 1 Crllvlisc No Me6394 of2004 6 1 Singh MehruGair Marusi Thereafter the said entrycontinued in the revenue record Entries in the jamabandisfor the year 1992 werechangedas possessionwas taken from the petitioners civil Iitigationis going 0n between the partiesfor the Iast 30 years The FIR in questionhas been IodgedIll the year 2003 qua forgerywhich is alllegedto have been committed Ill the year 1953m54 The case of the complainantis that the forgery was committed qua the record maintainedbythe Office of the Deputy 0 0 Commissioner The age of petitionerNol has been givenas 60 I year The presentpetitionwas filed in the year2004 Thus at the C0 I time of the allegedforgerypetitionerNovas agedabout 10 years Z Ageof petitionerNo has been given as 57 years Petitioner No 2 IS the younger brother of petitionerNol Petitioner No2 has Since C died but he was also about 7 years old at the time of the alleged I forgeryIt iS not believable that boysof that age could go to the Z Office of DeputyCommissioner and commit forgeryof record OO Once the allegationqua gery goes then the arguzment raised by 7 the Iearned counsel f6r the respondentthat the forgedrecord had Z been used by the petitioners is also Iiable to be rejectedThus it 0 appears that the FlR in questionhas been Iodgedjustto pressurize the petitionersin the civil Iitigationpendingbetween the panies Parties can get their rightssettled qua the suit Iand in the civil Iitigation but the continuation of criminal proceedingsItl the present case would be nothingbut an abuse of process of Iaw this rjetitionis allowed FlR N0242 dated 42003 64nnexurePll under Sections 420468471467 and 120eB 4 iPC registeredat Police Station Division No Jalandhar and ali Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 484 6 Crllvlisc No Me6394of2004 4 proceedingsarisingthereto are quashed JUDGE August 292011 atya 4 1J 1 L 0 0 4 l1 I t5 1 Z rl Lr r Z t CO S7 Z Oa Rani Anita 2012.05.17 13: 07 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document