In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 14693 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.8.2010 Gurmukh Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Satpal Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint filed under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Khanna, Police District Khanna titled Satpal Singh vs. Gurmukh Singh and others pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna and summoning order dated 27.10.2007. The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-2) read as under:- “That there are civil litigations between Gurmukh Singh Crl.Misc.No.M- 14693 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and the complainant regarding the property of Dawat Sweets and passage and that litigations are pending in the Hon'ble Court Sh.K.K.Goyal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khanna and Mrs.Priya Sood, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khanna. That when the complainant filed the civil suit regarding the property of Dawat Sweets and passage in the Hon'ble Courts, the accused persons continuously threatened the complainant to withdraw the civil suits otherwise they will kill the complainant and his family members. The accused person also openly threatened that they have goodwill with the high authorities no any officer can make any criminal case against us. That when the Local Commission visit at the spot to locate the property at the spot the accused person started to abuse the complainant and on the same day the accused person threatened the complainant to withdraw the civil case otherwise they will kill him and his family members. The accused person continuously threatened the complainant and his family members. That thereafter on 24.9.2005 the complainant reported the matter in writing the Senior Superintendent of Police District Khanna against the accused person for taking action. The police duly received the application Crl.Misc.No.M- 14693 of 2010 (O&M) -3- vide registered No.2040 dated 24.9.2005 but the accused person being influential person, no action has been taken by the police so far. That on 14.2.2006, the complainant also file a reminder in writing to the Senior Superintendent of Police District Khanna (ii) DGP Punjab Chandigarh (iii) Chief Minister, Punjab Chandigarh (iv) Chief Director Vigilance Chandigarh (v) Chairperson Punjab State Human Commission Chandigarh (vi) Director Local Bodies Punjab Chandigarh against the accused for taking action. The police duly received the reminder vide registered No.356-P dated 15.2.2006 being influential person, no action has been taken by the police so far, the accused person are roaming freely are causing threat of life to the complainant and his family members.” 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 14693 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 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. Crl.Misc.No.M- 14693 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 14693 of 2010 (O&M) -6- extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” Complainant-Satpal Singh in support of his complaint led his preliminary evidence. The complainant himself appeared in the witness box and also proved on record the complaint filed by him before Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna and examined his son to corroborate his version that civil litigation was pending between the parties and the accused had threatened them in connection with the said litigation. The trial Court passed the summoning order as a prima facie case was found to have been made out against the accused and on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant. In these circumstances, since there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint and the complainant has led his preliminary evidence in support of the same, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 16, 2010 anita