CRM No. M 9604 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 9604 of 2011 Date of decision: 04.04.2011 Piyare Lal ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 86 dated 28.08.2008 registered at Police Station Dyalpur under Section 457, 380 IPC (P1) and challan dated 05.09.2010 (P5). Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for quashing of the FIR contended that the FIR was registered on 28.08.2008 and the co- accused Darshan Singh was arrested on 05.09.2008. Thereafter, the said Darshan Singh was released on bail vide order dated 15.09.2008. It is further contended that it is evident from the bail order that although recovery was effected from the said Darshan Singh, challan has not been filed against Darshan Singh as he was found innocent. It is also CRM No. M 9604 of 2011 2 contended that 17-18 unidentified persons and three vehicles were involved in the commission of alleged offence but as per the challan, there is no evidence of unidentified persons and vehicles. As such, the prosecution story is rendered doubtful and the FIR should be quashed against the present petitioner. It is also contended that the present petitioner on a number of occasions requested the complainant to vacate the land but instead thereof, the present FIR has been lodged. It is further contended that the petitioner is a well established businessman, income tax returnee and residing 125 kms away from the alleged place of incident and therefore, he could not be involved in the said FIR. Heard. The fact that the said Darshan Singh was found innocent during investigation cannot be made a ground to quash the FIR against the present petitioner. The matter was investigated. It is an admitted position that the challan does not make reference as to whether the said recovery was effected from Darshan Singh. Challan has been filed against the present petitioner. Obviously, at the stage, the present petitioner was found to be involved in the said offence. Therefore, it would be a matter of trial as to whether the prosecution story is entirely incorrect or partly correct. Further, the argument that the petitioner resides at a far away place from the place of occurrence and is a well established businessman in itself cannot absolve the petitioner of the allegation especially when it is an admitted position that there was enmity between the parties. It is admitted that the petitioner made representation to SSP, Bathinda, DIG Bathinda, CRM No. M 9604 of 2011 3 DC, Bathinda etc. regarding forcible possession of land being taken by the complainant and the petitioner on a number of occasion had asked the complainant to vacate the land. As such, the petitioner having used forced and high handedness as mentioned in the FIR to force the complainant to vacate the land cannot be ruled out. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, while warning and directing the Courts to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, laid down a list of such cases, where the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR which are as under :- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. CRM No. M 9604 of 2011 4 (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 a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.” The facts in the present case do not fall in any of the said list of the cases as detailed in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Moreover, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to be taken in defence, whereas, FIR cannot be quashed on the said grounds. Moreso, when as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was seen by the CRM No. M 9604 of 2011 5 complainant. He was recognized. The complainant is the eye witness to the said occurrence. The allegation will have to be tested in the trial. Accordingly, there is no ground to quash the FIR. Dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 04.04.2011 mohan