Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 Date of Decision:April 17, 2009 Uma Bhatia and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharath Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent No. 1 Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Crl. Misc. No. 13697 of 2009 Application is allowed. Agreement to sell dated 24.11.2006 is taken on record as Annexure R-2/1. Criminal Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of FIR No. 413 dated 17.8.2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 {2} 471, 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. The allegations leveled in the FIR (Annexure P-4) against the petitioners, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased plot owned by petitioners No. 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- through the attorney of the owner Rajinder Bhatia on 24.5.2004. However, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the complainant. Rather the petitioners raised a demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- more or otherwise they told the complainant that they would cancelled the general power of attorney. Petitioners No. 1 to 2 cancelled the general power of attorney on 6.12.2006. Petitioners No. 1 to 3 in order to defraud the claim of the complainant executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR in question is liable to be quashed as respondent No. 2/complainant is the brother –in-law of Rajinder Bhatia. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had cancelled the general power of attorney on 6.12.2006. Rajinder Bhatia, however, had not been arrayed as an accused. Petitioners No. 3 and 4 has no concern with the alleged offence. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on Manisha Goyal vs. State of Punjab 2006(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 162 and Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another 2006(4)R.C.R.(Criminal)834 wherein it was held that for constitution of offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must be shown to be existing from the very beginning of the transaction. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that charge has already been framed by the trial court and now the case is listed for prosecution evidence, as such, at this stage, it would not be appropriate Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 {3} to quash the FIR in question. After receipt of Rs. 2,25,000/- from respondent No. 2, petitioners No. 1 and 2 had cancelled the general power of attorney executed by them in favour of Rajinder Bhatia. Agreement to sell had been executed by Rajinder Bhatia in favour of respondent No. 2 on the basis of the general power of attorney (Annexure P-2). 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, 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 {4} (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. We also give a note of caution to the effect Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 {5} that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the 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, vide annexure P-2, petitioners No. 1 and 2 executed a general power of attorney in favour of Rajinder Kumar Bhatia with regard to the plot in question. Clause 7 of the said general power of attorney authorized the attorney holder to sell, mortgage, gift, transfer the property to any one and to receive the consideration amount of earnest money and to execute proper deeds and documents and present the same for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned. Mr. R.K.Bhatia executed the agreement to sell in favour of respondent No. 2 on the basis of said general power of attorney on 29.5.2004. Receipt was also issued by the attorney to the effect that he had received Rs. 2,25,000/- from respondent No. 2. Apparently, the said documents were executed by Mr. R.K.Bhatia on behalf of the owners being their attorney holder with a view to defraud respondent No. 2. The said general power of attorney was cancelled by petitioners No. 1 and 2 on 6.12.2006. At this stage, the allegation in the FIR are that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 are the owners of the plot in question and now they have sold the plot in question, to petitioner No. 4, to defraud/cheat respondent No. 2. After investigation, challan was presented Crl. Misc. No. M-11850 of 2008 {6} in the Court and admittedly after framing of the charge, the trial is fixed for prosecution evidence. In the facts of the present case, it would not be proper to quash the FIR in question at this stage. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are based on their own facts and fail to advance the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, any observation made above will not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case (SABINA) JUDGE April 17, 2009 PARAMJIT