Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 3.3.2010 Purshottam Dass Aggarwal and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Tomar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing FIR No. 46 of 2010 dated 15.2.2010 under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 384/ 387/ 323/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station Khaidki Daula. The case of the complainant-respondent No.2 as per the complaint (Annexure P-1) reads as under:- “1. That the complainant is law abiding citizen of the society and is doing garments business having good Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 2 reputation in the society. 2. The accused persons are known to the complainant. In the year 2007-2008, the accused persons allured the complainant and took Rs.1 Crore from him on the assurance that they will get him land for education society on cheaper rate. They had taken Rs.80 lacs at Crown Plaza Hotel, Gurgaon in presence of Sunil Gupta son of Ram Khilari Gupta and Ramesh Yadav son of Sh.Kishan Yadav and remaining Rs.20 lacs were taken at A-6, Maharana Pratap Enclave, Delhi from the complainant on the assurance that they will get the complainant land for Education Society. A writing on stamp paper was also executed by the accused in favour of complainant for receiving Rs. 1Crore from the accused. The accused persons saw land at many places at Sohna Road Gurgaon for Education Society which the complainant liked. 3. That the accused persons also assured the complainant that they are having good relations with the Chief Minister of Haryana and they can get the land for Education Society on cheaper rate. They also claimed themselves that they are owner of certain societies and they will get land to the complainant for education society easily on cheaper rate. So, in this Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 3 way, they induced the complainant to hand over money to them. 4. That when the land for Education Society was not allotted to the complainant then the complainant started to demand from the accused to return his amount of Rs. 1 Crore taken by them but the accused were avoiding the matter on one pretext or the others. 5. That when the complainant came to know that both the accused are habitual in committing forgery and playing fraud and they have also committed forgery and played fraud in Kanpur, Surat and Delhi and now in Gurgaon they used to receive money from the people by playing fraud, the complainant started demanding his money from the accused. On repeated demand of complainant to return his money the accused persons returned Rs.47 lacs to the complainant and when the complainant asked from the accused when they will return the balance amount both the accused threatened the complainant that they have access to many big ministers, officers and criminal and the complainant cannot harm them and also threatened that they will pay Rs. 5 lacs as ransom for killing the complainant instead of giving the complainant Rs. 47 lacs. 6. That the complainant moved an application Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 4 before the local police and on his application police called the accused persons and before the police both the accused admitted that they had taken Rs. 1 crore from the complainant and also admitted before the police that they have already returned Rs. 47 lacs and remaining amount of Rs. 53 lacs will be paid by them to the complainant. 7. That when the complainant persisted for his money the accused persons on 5.1.2010 called the complainant at Kherki Daula, Gurgaon near Haldi Ram restaurant at 8.00 p.m. along with relevant papers le writing executing by them, the complainant along with Dharampal son of Sh.Ram Kumar and Ramesh Yadav son of Sh.Kishan Yadav reached there at 8.00 pm where both the accused along with 7-8 other persons were present there. The accused persons started to abuse the complainant and asked him to hand over the papers. Whose name complainant does not know put a pistol on the temple of the complainant and asked him to hand over the papers/writing of the accused persons. Due to fear, the complainant hand over the papers to the accused persons. The accused persons also threatened the complainant that if the complainant dare to come again they they will kill them. Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 5 8. That the complainant moved an application in police station, Kherki Daula for taking action against the accused but the local police refuse to take any action against them rather the local police is patronizing the accused persons. 9. That the complainant also met with high police officers and requested them for taking action against the accused but to no effect. It is therefore, prayed that present complaint may very kindly be ordered to be sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Station House Officer, Police Station, Kherki Daula for registration of FIR and taking action against the accused persons in the interest of justice.” The complainant moved the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 3.2.2010 (Annexure P-2), the learned Magistrate directed the police of Police Station Kherki Daula to register a case against accused persons and make necessary investigation in the case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that no ground for quashing 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:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 6 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 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. Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 7 (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. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-6123 of 2010(O&M) 8 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 complaint reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. Hence, it would not be appropriate to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 03, 2010 anita