Crl.Misc. No.M-4286 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4286 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 16, 2010 Sanjeev Kumar ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sanjeev Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No. 141 dated 6.11.2009 registered under Sections 341, 506 and 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short `the Act') at Police Station Mehna District Moga (Annexure P1) and all other consequential proceedings arising there from . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P1) read as under:- “I am resident of above address. I am working with Banke Bihari Crl.Misc. No.M-4286 of 2009 2 owner brick kiln owner. He is not paying us our full wages. We and our family has been detained by them. Aggrieved with aforesaid conduct, we filed petition for releasing us bearing No. 1310/2009. The court appointed warrant officer and sent him and got us released, when I was going with my family, then near Ajitwal, Banke Bhiari brick-kiln owner namely Sh Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sohan Lal, Sund s/o Sohan Lal resident of Galli No. 9, New Town Moga, stopped us by way of parking their car bearing No. PB29-B-0110 and started us to move back and abused us and I came to police post and produce the copy of petition No. 1310/5.11.09, I have given my statement and the same is correct. Attested Sd/- Rajbir Singh.” It has been held in 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, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any Crl.Misc. No.M-4286 of 2009 3 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 where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. Crl.Misc. No.M-4286 of 2009 4 (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 FIR reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had way laid the complainant and his family members and abused them. The complainant had earlier filed a petition seeking writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of detenues who were family members and near relatives of the complainant from the illegal custody of the petitioner. As per the report of the Warrant Officer (Annexure P2), the complainant had loaded the luggage belonging to him and his family members and had taken away the detenues. The allegation as per FIR is that while the complainant and his family members were going, they were way laid by the petitioner. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. It would not be in the interest of justice to scuttle the Crl.Misc. No.M-4286 of 2009 5 criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Dismissed ( Sabina ) Judge July 16 , 2010 arya