Criminal Misc. No.M-2651 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-2651 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2011 Surinder Kamboj ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Brar, A.A.G.Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.260 dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420/ 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), 1860 registered at Police Station City Abohar District Ferozepur. FIR in question was registered on the basis of the statement made by Sarabjit Singh. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he was resident of Abohar and was running the business of commission agent. About 5-6 years back, Surinder Kamboj owner of Kamboj Rice Mill, Jalalabad and Sudhir Kumar Kamboj had purchased paddy worth ` 13/14 lacs. Cheques had been issued in his favour by Kamboj Rice Mill. The said persons were not returning him his due amount. He along with his clerk Criminal Misc. No.M-2651 of 2011 2 Rajinder Kumar had gone to them for return of his money but they had misbehaved with them and had threatened to kill them. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-2651 of 2011 3 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 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. Criminal Misc. No.M-2651 of 2011 4 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 in question reveals that the case set up by the complainant is purely civil in nature. The petitioner had allegedly failed to pay the price of paddy to the complainant. In this regard the complainant could have raised civil dispute or could have presented the cheques for encashment and in case the cheques had been dishonoured, the complainant could have sought his legal remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . However, no offence could be said to be made out under Sections 420/ 406 IPC. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.260 dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420/ 406 IPC registered at Police Station City Abohar District Ferozepur., and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 28, 2011 anita