Crl.Misc.No.M- 21996 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 21996 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Jai Bhagwan ......Petitioner Versus State through Govt. Food Inspector, Sonepat (Haryana) .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint No.57 dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint had been filed after a long delay and hence, the valuable right of the petitioner to get the sample re-analysed had been infringed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of Crl.Misc.No.M- 21996 of 2011 2 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 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 21996 of 2011 3 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. 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 Crl.Misc.No.M- 21996 of 2011 4 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, the Food Inspector lodged the complaint on the allegations that on 13.7.2009 at about 5 p.m., he had visited the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner was found in possession of 15 kgs of ghee for public sale contained in a tin box. Sample from the tin box was drawn and the same was divided into three equal parts and were bottled in three dry clean empty bottles. Preservatives were added in the said bottles and thereafter, these were sealed. One sample was sent for analysis to Public Analysis, Haryana, Chandigarh. After receipt of the report that the sample was adulterated, complaint was filed in the Court by the complainant/Food Inspector on 25.5.2010. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the trial Court. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 22.4.2011 and was admitted to bail. Application was moved by the petitioner for re- analysis of the sample and on the said application, direction was issued to the complainant to produce the sample on 22.7.2011 by the Government pleader. The pleas taken by the petitioner that there was delay in lodging the complaint and his right to get the sample re- analysed was infringed can be raised by the petitioner during trial. At this stage, there is no opinion of the analyst that the second sample Crl.Misc.No.M- 21996 of 2011 5 was not fit for analysis. The petitioner was found in possession of adulterated ghee. Hence, no ground for interference at this stage is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2011 anita