Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 20110 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.7.2011. Mukhtiar Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. G.N.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No. 130 dated 26.09.2009 (Annexure P-5), under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar, Malerkotla and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as no offence was made out against the petitioner. Learned state counsel on the other hand has submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature. Challan has already been presented in the case after due investigation. Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 20110 -2 - After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “Sir, the applicant submits the application as under:- 1. That applicant is a peaceful and law abiding citizen of India and does the farming on his land at village Manvi. 2. That applicant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in a month June, 2007 from the said Mukhtiar Singh and applicant executed the pronote and receipt pronote dated 29.6.2007 I favour of said Mukhtiar Singh. 3. The said Mukhtiar Singh demanded the pronote amount in the month of November, 2007. Upon this applicant returned the pronote amount alongwith interest on 10.11.2007 to him I presence of Balwinder Singh son of Sant Singh R/o village Jagowal, Kirpal Singh son of Joginder Singh r/o Village Manvi and Hardeep Singh son of Sohan Singh r/o Village Manvi Tehsil Malerkotla. After receiving the full amount said Mukhtiar Singh torn the said pronote and receipt pronote in presence of abovesaid witnesses. 4. That applicant came to know from reliable person that said pronote and receipt pronote in presence of above said witness. 4. That applicant came to know from reliable person that said Mukhtiar Singh had lodged a false DDR Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 20110 -3 - regarding the loss of with his son Jasvir Singh. Whereas, the real fact is that applicant have returned the pronote amount and said Mukhtiar Singh had torn the original pronote and receipt pronote date 29.6.2007. 5. That said Mukhtiar Singh is now threatening the applicant that he will file a suit against the applicant on the basis of false DDR which he has lodged against applicant said Mukhtiar Singh also blackmailing the applicant and demanding the money twice on the basis of said false DDR. So you are hereby requested to take necessary action against the Mukhtiar Singh and his son Jasvir Singh for cheating the applicant and for lodging a false DDR on the basis of wrong facts. Dated: sd/- Submitted by Jarnail Singh s/o Nahar Singh r/o Manvi Tehsil Malerkotla.” 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 20110 -4 - 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 20110 -5 - 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 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 no offence is made Crl. Misc. No. M-9642 of 20110 -6 - out against the petitioner. The FIR has been lodged by the complainant on the apprehension that the petitioner may file a civil suit against him on the basis of a DDR. In case the petitioner files a civil suit, he would be taking recourse to law and the civil suit would be decided on the basis of evidence, adduced by the parties during trial. Merely because there is an apprehension that a civil suit may be filed against the complainant, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, on the basis of the FIR in question would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 130 dated 26.09.2009 (Annexure P-5), under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Malerkotla, and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 21, 2011 Gurpreet