Crl. Misc. No. M- 4967 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 4967 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 17, 2010 Gurdial Chand and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Subhash Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harish Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No.2 dated 15.1.2010, under Sections 379/411/120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Ropar. The contents of the FIR as reproduced in para 9 of the petition read as under :- “To SHO Police Station Nurpur Bedi, Ropar. Sir, it is requested that at about 5 p.m. when I, Jagtar Singh son of Bachan Singh was administering fertilizer to my field, then Baldev Singh Panch came Crl. Misc. No. M- 4967 of 2010 (O&M) 2 out of the area of the Gaushala. Thereafter, I came to my house and Baldev Singh also came to his house. Thereafter, when I came to know then I and the villagers saw the Master Gurdial Chand, Baldev Singh Panch and Chowkidar Baldev Raj were coming out of the Gaushala, while bringing the pieces of log wood on the Reghari. I and the villagers asked them to stop. Instead of stopping they started hurling abuses. Behind them Madan Lal son of Surjit Singh contractor and Ajmer Singh were coming and they also started hurling abuses to us. After stopping the Rehri we informed the police. The police recovered the Rehri of wood and took the same to the police station. Earlier also Master Gurdial Chand and Gurdev Singh Panch and Chowkidar Baldev Raj have stolen the wood, the investigation of which is pending in the police station. Kindly taken action against these accused and the persons who hurled abuses. We shall be highly obliged to you. Dated 6.1.10. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Jagtar Singh etc.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. The matter had been inquired at different levels and it has been found that log wood had been stolen but it could not be ascertained as to who had stolen the same. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under :- Crl. Misc. No. M- 4967 of 2010 (O&M) 3 “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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 4967 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 FIR reveals that allegations levelled against the petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 are serious in nature. The said petitioners were seen coming out of the Guashala along with logs of wood. During investigation it transpired that the said petitioners had stolen wood in connivance with petitioner No.2 Satya Devi. Crl. Misc. No. M- 4967 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Keeping in view the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, it would not be just and expedient or in the interest of justice to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Dismissed. (SABINA) December 17, 2010 JUDGE Anand