IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc. No.M-14126 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.7.2009 Labh Singh. ....... Petitioner through Shri D.S.Pheruman,Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R.No.132 dated 26.2.2009 registered at Police Station, City Sirsa under Sections 406, 420 of the I.P.C. which has been attached with the instant petition as Annexure P9. An additional prayer has also been made to quash all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. On 26.2.2009, complainant-Parkash Singh (respondent no.2) lodged the aforementioned F.I.R., the English translation of which reads as under:- “To The S.H.O., Police Station, City, Sirsa. Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -2- .... Subject: Application for registration of case against Labh Singh son of Sh.Gurbachan Singh, resident of Village Lakarwali, District Sirsa and for giving justice to the complainant. Sir, It is requested that the applicant Parkash Singh son of Sh.Atma Singh is resident of Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, Sirsa (Haryana) Police Station, City Sirsa. Applicant is a follower of Sacha Saudha which is a mixture of all religions. Labh Singh son of Gurbachan Singh is resident of Village Lakarwali, District Sirsa, who resides near my house in Shah Satnam Ji Nagar. He used to come to me and sit together. Labh Singh is also a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda. In the first week of August,2006, I was sitting in the shop of Sach Cloth House adjoining to the market of Shah Satnam Ji Nagar. There were Chandi Ram and Ravi Kumar and Ram Singh who are followers of Dera were also present on the shop were sitting with me. Labh Singh came on the shop and told that we owned Sach Agro and Food Products Private Limited Company whose registered office is at Delhi. Avtar Singh and others are the directors of it. I am a whole time director. We jointly decided that company should purchase land in Sonipat and develop it into residential to increase the business of the company. There is a great profit in this business. We have already started talks for purchase of land whose market value is about Rs.2 crores. Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -3- .... Company has not that much money. Therefore, we have decided to join the known followers in it and they will be made share holders in the land as per their investment and they will be provided shares of the company as per the investment. Myself, Ravi Kumar, Chandi Ram and Ram Singh made up our mind to purchase the land as per having faith on this proposal of Labh Singh and the other followers also paid near about Rs.2 crores to Labh Singh to join in this land. I also believed Labh Singh and paid a cheque bearing No.008298 of Rs.10 lacs dated 21.9.2006 from my saving account from the Oriental Bank of Commerce whose branch is in the Shah Satnam Ji Nagar. At the time of receiving the cheque Labh Singh told that you will be issued shares equal to your amount and share in the land. Some days after paying the cheque I asked Labh Singh about share certificate and share in the land as per his assurance, then Labh Singh told that the project is going on and you will be paid share certificates as per your amount. After that a lot of time has been lapsed. In the second week of September,2007, Labh Singh came in Sach Cloth House and called me and told that he has brought the concerned form of shares on which your signatures are required. After that you will be paid share certificates. Believing on the words, I signed on the form which he had brought along with him. At that time, Sampuran Singh son of Pritam Singh, Ram Asre son of Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -4- .... Jagan Nath were present who live in Shah Satnam Ji Nagar. Labh Singh also repeated those words in the presence of above mentioned persons and a photocopy of the form handed over to me and said that the remaining work will be done by himself and you will be paid share certificate as per your amount at the earliest. But when after many days, Labh Singh did not issue me certificate and on repeated requests, he dilly dallying the matter. When we insisted forcefully that we have paid the amount, then in the first week of October,2007, Labh Singh gave us a photo copy of balance sheet for the year 2006-07 showing the loss and profit, Director's report and list of share holders which had been approved by the company on 30.9.2007. After seeing that we found that we have been issued share of Rs.1000/-. On that we asked Labh Singh that my amount was of Rs.10 lac then he told that you all people from whom the amount has been taken they have been issued shares only of Rs.1000/- while my amount was bigger. After increasing the paid up capital of the company you will be allotted shares as per your amount. We waited for 5-6 months as per his assurance for increasing our shares but after 5-6 months when no action was taken we found foul play then in the first week of April,2008 I met Ravi Kumar, Chandi Ram and Ram Singh and talked about this matter. After talking with these people it came to knowledge that they have also not Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -5- .... received the certificate as per the amount paid to Labh Singh. Then we all went to Labh Singh who met us in Sach market at Shop No.1. We asked him that what he has done with our amount then he told that the company has purchased land of your amount but the capital of the company has not increased so far. I have already passed a resolution for share certificates of all the people and one photocopy was also shown to us and at the same time, told us that I have resigned from the company and I have no concern with the company. Labh Singh talked us with anger that now don't come tome for this purpose. Otherwise I will kill you. We asked that we were believing you being a Satsangi and we respect you and this is not proper for you. Then he also used defamatory language for the institution. Then we came back. I verified from the registered office of the company at Delhi about the resolution and the other matters told to us. Then it came to our knowledge that he has resigned from the company and he got it lost some papers from the company office at Delhi and the resolution dated 30.7.2006 given to us is also forged and fabricated which resolution he has prepared by forging the signatures to cause loss to us with bad intention., As such, he has committed forgery with us and cheated us and has caused loss to me of Rs.10 lac and loss to some other people and has got undue benefit. In this forgery, there is conspiracy of other people who wanted to defame the Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -6- .... dera. Therefore, Sir, it is requested that after registering case, punishment maybe given to the accused and appropriate legal action may be taken and justice maybe done with me. I shall be thankful to you. Applicant Sd/- Parkash Singh.” Concededly, the petitioner was a Director of Sach Agro and Food Products Private Limited Company at one point of time. It were the shares of this company which were promised to the complainant and on the strength of the representation which was made by the petitioner himself, an amount of Rs.10 lacs was paid by the complainant to him,but instead of giving shares worth Rs.10 lacs, he was given shares worth Rs.1000/- only leading to the lodging of the present F.I.R. The contentions which have been raised before this Court seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are broadly with reference to the facts and background of the company and spill out between its Directors. Learned counsel for the petitioner elaborately referred to the background of the company and contended that it was set up initially with the help of two founder directors, namely, Avtar Singh and Jasmeet Singh and thereafter, three more directors were inducted, namely, Labh Singh (present petitioner), Gurchet Singh and Bhupinder Singh. It was further contended that the affairs of the company went on smoothly up to the year 2007 and it raised loans of Rs.2 crores from different individuals to purchase agricultural land measuring 8.25 acres at Sonepat in Haryana. The company passed a resolution in July,2006 that the share of the company be Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -7- .... allotted to the Directors who rendered financial help to it in response to the said resolution and pursuant thereto, Avtar Singh and Jasmeet Singh were authorised to raise loan and to increase the paid up capital so as to enable the company to purchase land. Avtar Singh and Jasmeet Singh were also authorised to operate the bank account of the company. Avtar Singh was allegedly implicated in a case pertaining to the murder of one Ranjit Singh and he is in judicial custody since November,2006. In the meantime, the prices of the land shot up and Jasmeet Singh in connivance with other accused persons fabricated the records of the company and appointed certain other directors and the petitioner was divested of his directorship. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this was done by totally ignoring the process of law and this factum of his being removed from the post of Director was not even disclosed to him and finally he got this information from the Registrar of Companies and concluded that Jasmeet Singh and others had committed forgery and cheated the petitioner. He, therefore, filed a complaint with Station House Officer, Police Station, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi on 5.8.2008 followed by another complaint on 1.9.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi and when no action was taken, a criminal complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of the I.P.C. titled as “ Labh Singh Versus Jasmeet Singh and others” was filed on 12.9.2008, which complaint was sent by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkar Dooma, Delhi to the police to register a case and investigate the matter vide order dated 6.2.2009. This order was challenged by Jasmeet Singh before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkar Dooma Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -8- .... Court, Delhi by way of a revision, which was dismissed on 28.2.2009 and directions were given to the Station House Officer to ensure compliance of the Magistrate's order dated 6.2.2009. Pursuant to these orders, a criminal case was registered against Jasmeet Singh vide F.I.R.No.92 dated 5.3.2009 at Police Station, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made reference to the lineage of said Jasmeet Singh, who is stated to be son of one Gurmeet Singh alias Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh, Incharge of Dera Sacha Sauda. He contended with reference to these facts that Jasmeet Singh by exercising his influence over his followers and with the assistance of complainant-Parkash Singh, who is a staunch supporter of Baba Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh and is also his body guard,, has got this F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner and in fact, the loan of Rs.10 lacs was got by Jasmeet Singh from the complainant through a cheque which was also entered into its records. He further contended that the balance sheets of the company was also fraudulently prepared by Avtar Singh and the same were submitted to the Registrar of Companies on 30.7.2008 and in this disclosure, five directors were shown, namely, Avtar Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Labh Singh, Gurchet Singh and Jasmeet Singh, while some other information given in Form-20B, Avtar Singh is shown to have resigned on 28.2.2006. In short, the affairs of the company were mis-managed and fraudulent record was being prepared and transfer of shares in the names of certain persons was fictitious. It is in this background that the petitioner has alleged that the complainant being a stooge of respondent no.3-Jasmeet Singh and with intention to brow-beat him, has lodged the present F.I.R. as Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -9- .... a counter-blast to F.I.R.No.92 dated 5.3.2009 registered at Police Station, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed from the directorship on 12.5.2008 in a fraudulent manner by forging the documents and this fact was known to the complainant, but, yet, the present allegations have been made which are totally false and the F.I.R. in question deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions/ submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of Haryana and others Versus Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 S.C. 604; Ashok Chaturvedi Versus Shitul H.Chanchani, 1998(7) S.C.C. 698; G.Sagar Suri Versus State of U.P., 2000(2) S.C.C. 636 and Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. Versus Rajiv Dubey, 2009(2) Criminal Court Cases 400 (S.C.). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Essentially, the quashing of the F.I.R. in question has been sought with reference to the aforesaid background on the following grounds:- 1. That the F.I.R. is a counter-blast to the F.I.R. got registered by the petitioner against Jasmeet Singh in Police Station, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi. 2. That the allegations made by the complainant in the F.I.R. are false and have been made in connivance with the police and other political leaders, who are influential and have clout Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -10- .... with the head of the Dera Sacha Sauda. 3. That the petitioner was removed from the post of Director of the company and was not liable for its affairs. 4. That the F.I.R. was an instrument of pressure. 5. That no complaint has been made against the company whose shares were in question. The essence of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been brought out in numerous judgments and the essential fundamentals of the principle of law as enunciated in various pronouncements of the Supreme Court can easily be compressed into a compact observation to say that the High Court should not exercise this power to quash the F.I.R. if it discloses commission of offence. It is also evident therefrom that the F.I.R. should not be quashed at the threshold when the investigation of the police is in progress. In R.B.Kapur Versus The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C.866, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:- “Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -11- .... allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person.” In Kurukshetra University Versus State of Haryana, AIR 1977 S.C. 2229, it was observed by the Apex Court as under:- “It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.” Likewise, in State of West Bengal Versus Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 S.C. 949, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under:- “........... the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted......... Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -12- .... necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -13- .... been disclosed..........” In State of Haryana and others Versus Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, (supra), the Supreme Court, while explaining the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., laid down certain parameters, principles and guidelines, which are as follows:- “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 channelised 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 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 Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -14- .... 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. 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 Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -15- .... 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. 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.” If the contents of the instant F.I.R. are to be seen, then it transpires that the petitioner allured the complainant to part with Rs.10 lacs by holding out a promise of giving shares of the company to him. It cannot be said that if the allegations as narrated in the F.I.R. are taken on their face value do not disclose commission of an offence. Crl.Misc.No. M-14126 of 2009 -16- .... This Court certainly is not expected to evaluate the backdrop of the case as given in the petition regarding the affairs of the company to outrightly reject the allegations as set out in the F.I.R. by observing that it does not constitute an offence as these are the matters which are to be probed and determined during the course of investigation. The averments that have been made in the petition regarding the affairs of the company, at best, can be termed to be proposed defences of the petitioner which also necessarily have to be gone into by the investigating agency. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lodging of the present F.I.R. is a counter-blast to the one which he has lodged against one of the directors of the company cannot be accepted for the very same reason that the allegations in the F.I.R. show that the complainant was made to part with an amount of Rs.10 lacs on the strength of the representation made by the petitioner, who promised equivalent number of shares to him, which ultimately did not fructify and only the shares of worth Rs.1000/- were given. The Court does not wish to comment as to the offence which stands made out in the F.I.R., lest it will prejudice the cause of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the allegations disclose commission of various offences and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the instant F.I.R.