M.Cr.C. 6334/2011 20/12/2011 Petitioner by Shri Vikrant Sharma with Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocates. Respondent/State by Shri Prabal Solanki, P.P. Arguments heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered against the petitioner at Crime No. 495/2011 at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 212 and 216 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. The FIR has been registered on the basis of a letter written by Sanju Pachori against whom a reward of Rs. 5,000/- has been declared. Letter has been seized by the police from the possession of Rivallo alias Ramakant at the instance of co-accused Ashok Pachori and case has been registered against 8 persons for the offence punishable under Sections 212 and 216 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. The only allegation against the petitioner in the letter is that he borrowed Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sanju Pachori and is not returning the same. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- **++nknk tks Hkh esjs ikl :i;s Fks lc edku es yx x;sa 1]50]000@& :i;s Bsdsnkj pkpk ij gS mUgksaus m/kkj fy;s Fks vc oks nsrs gh ugha gS A** Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reference M.Cr.C. 6334/2011 against the petitioner in the letter is only for borrow of money of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sanju Pachori and not returning of the same but there is no reference of name of petitioner in the letter by co-accused Ashok Singh and Murari Lal on the basis of which offence has been registered against the petitioner. They have tole the name of petitioner as Upadhyay Thekedar of Ambah. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner lives at Morena and in support of his arguments he has filed voter identity card, licence and copy of ration card. Considering the fact that in the letter written by Sanju Pachori name of petitioner has not been mentioned, and even it it is taken that reference of Thekedar relates to petitioner, there is no allegation that he used to help the Sanju Pachori. On the other hand allegation against him is only of borrowing Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sanju Pachori which he is not returning which does not fall within the purview of offence punishable under Section 212 and 216 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the leading case of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein certain conditions has been enumerated under which the criminal proceedings can be quashed as the initial stage. The conditions are enumerated in para 108 of the judgment which reads here as under: M.Cr.C. 6334/2011 “108. 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 formulas 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 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. M.Cr.C. 6334/2011 (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 engraved 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the 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 M.Cr.C. 6334/2011 accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Considering the above judgment and facts of the case, it is apparent that petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no allegation against him regarding commission of offence punishable under Sections 212 and 216 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and registration of FIR is clearly an abuse of process of law. Hence, this petition is allowed and FIR registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 212 and 216 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act is hereby quashed. (Anil Sharma) Judge jps/-