Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2011 Jaswinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.80 dated 3.7.2010 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station City, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been falsely involved in this case. Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that during investigation, statement of Anju Banga had been recorded and she had stated that the petitioner had represented to her that he was having acquaintance with different bank managers and could get prepared the bank statement. The petitioner had received ` 50,000/- from her and had got prepared a forged statement from his co-accused Ramanpreet Singh owner of Shri Consultancy, Chandigarh. The petitioner had also forged a bank statement in the name of her husband. After hearing 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 3 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 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 4 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.” In the present case, FIR in question was lodged by Seema Rana. It was alleged therein that 9 individuals had applied for student visas at the British High Commission, New Delhi and had supplied false documents apparently from the same agent. Out of the said 9 students, six applicants were married female students and five of them were taking their dependent husbands along. All the five students had got married in the year 2009. The applicants were going to do diploma in Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Management. Eight out of ten applicants had submitted forged bank statements Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 5 from Punjab and Sind Bank- 6 Behram Branch, Nawanshahr and two of Satnaur Branch, Hoshiarpur and one from Central Bank of India, Machhiwara. The signatures of the managers of the bank were sent for confirmation and it transpired that the same were forged. The agent used by almost all the applicants seemed to be same i.e. Rajinder Singh. Other agents believed to be involved in the scam were Jaspal Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Rana and Mr.Raman. Names of two agencies believed to be associated with the scam were Visa Solutions, Chandigarh Road District Nawanshahr and Shri Consultancy, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Although the petitioner was not specifically named in the FIR but during investigation it transpired that he was also part of the alleged scam. The statement of Anju Banga was recorded during investigation and she stated that the petitioner had represented to her that he was having acquaintance with different bank managers and could help them for getting bank statements. On receipt of ` 50,000/- from her, the petitioner had got prepared a forged statement from co-accused Ramanpreet Singh of Shri Consultancy, Chandigarh and had also forged a bank statement of Punjab and Sind Bank, Satnaur Branch District Hoshiarpur in the name of her husband. It has been averred in the written statement filed by the State that the petitioner had moved for grant of anticipatory bail Vide CRM-M No.26912 of 2010 and the same was dismissed as not pressed. The file of the said case was called. Vide order dated 23.9.2010, the counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that he did not press the anticipatory bail for the petitioner. However, his Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 6 regular bail be decided expeditiously. Consequently, the said bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It was further observed that in case the petitioner surrendered before the police within two days from the receipt of copy of the order then his application for regular bail be considered by the concerned court within three days of its filing after excluding the period of police remand, if any. However, the petitioner has not surrendered in terms of the said order. Learned State counsel has submitted that proceedings for declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender are pending against him. Challan has been presented in this case. A perusal of the order dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure P-4), passed in CRM-M No.21095 of 2010 filed by Rajinder Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail, reveals that the bail application qua the said petitioner-Rajinder Kumar was accepted as the amount in question was to be recovered from the present petitioner. A perusal of the order 23.9.2010( Annexure R-1) passed in CRM -M No.26874 of 2010 in a bail petition filed by Ramanpreet Singh reveals that the said petition was dismissed as it was necessary to be ascertained if there was any collusion between Ramanpreet Singh and the present petitioner. Since the petitioner, instead of surrendering before the Court in terms of the order passed in CRM-M No.26912 of 2010, has allowed proceedings qua declaring him a proclaimed offender to continue, no ground for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Moreover, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no material to proceed against the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner is not named in the FIR, is no ground to quash the FIR Crl.Misc.No.M- 2335 of 2011 (O&M) 7 in question qua the petitioner as during investigation of the case, involvement of the petitioner in the scam has transpired. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 28, 2011 anita