Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 Narinder Singh son of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh r/o village Dargheri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB, Sub Division, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Challan No. 24T/05.08.08, dated 23.03.09, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh, presented in FIR No. 156, dated 03.08.08, under Sections 379, 353, and, 186 IPC, has been filed, by the petitioner. 2. The aforesaid FIR, came into existence, on the complaint of the Assistant Executive Engineer, complainant, wherein, it was alleged, that a complaint was received, regarding the theft of energy, by Narinder Singh, petitioner, as a result whereof, the Sub Divisional Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 2 Officer, Amloh, Sukhdev Singh and Pritpal Singh, AJEs, went to the spot, for checking. When they reached the spot, they saw that the petitioner, was running his 10 H.P. Motor, by direct connection from LT line. The bore of the motor was in his house, but he had placed kundi, through wire, underneath the gate, to the LT line. When the door was knocked, he asked, as to who were they. On being told, that they were the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board, he instead of opening the door, jumped over the wall came out, and entered into scuffle with Sukhdev Singh, AJE. He gave him pushes and fists as also removed the wire aforesaid and threw the same inside the gate. He also hurled abuses, at the entire team, and gave blows with fists and pushes, to the members thereof. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no checking of the electric connection, was made, by the officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board. He further submitted that the registration of the first information report, and the presentation of challan, within two days of the same, without any due investigation and inquiry, was a clear case of personal revenge, on the part of respondent No. 2/complainant, against whom, a complaint, was filed, by the father of the petitioner. He further submitted that, an inquiry, was conducted, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib, who found, that the connection, had been released, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 3 Amloh, without obtaining NOC, from the co-sharers. He further submitted that, even otherwise, the allegations of theft of energy, against the petitioner, were false and implausible. He further submitted that, there could not be any theft of energy, as the supply of energy, for agricultural purpose, to the farmers, in the State of Punjab, was free of cost. He further submitted that the petitioner, was neither the owner of the house, nor of the land, nor of any bore or motor, but, had been wrongly involved, in this case, because he was pursuing the complaints, filed by his father, against the Sub Divisional Officer, who tried his best to force him (petitioner) and his father, to withdraw the complaint. He further submitted that the allegations of scuffle, were without substance. He further submitted that the continuation of the first information report, would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders, as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established, by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 4 evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable, to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out, in the complaint, or charge-sheet, do not, in law, constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that, in following categories of cases, the High Court in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 5 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 prudgent person can every 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 6 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. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified. 6. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is applicable, to the same, or not. It is settled principle of law that, at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court, is only required to go through the allegations, contained in the first information report, and, if any offence, is constituted therefrom, then the same, cannot be quashed. Any plea of defence, raised by the accused- petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration, at that time. It is evident, from the allegations, contained in the first information report, that the complainant, on receipt of a complaint, alongwith Sukhdev Singh, AJE, and Pritpal Singh, AJE, went to the spot, for checking, as to whether, Narinder Singh, was running his 10 H.P. motor by direct connection from LT line. The bore of the motor was in his house,but he had placed kundi Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 7 through wire underneath the gate to the LT line. When the door was knocked, he asked, as to who were they. On being told, that they were the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board, he instead of opening the door, jumped over the wall came out, and entered into scuffle with Sukhdev Singh, AJE, and gave him pushes and fists as also removed the wire and threw the same inside the gate. He also hurled abuses, at the entire team, and gave blows, with fists and pushes, to the members of the team. As many as, three responsible officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board, checked the connection, and found, that the petitioner, had connected the wire with the LT line through kundi, to abstract the electric energy by artificial means. The bore of the motor, was in the house. It means that, the petitioner, was also allegedly committing theft of energy for domestic purposes. In this view of the matter, the mere fact that, farmers are being given electricity, free of cost, does not mean that by abstracting energy, through artificial means, from the agriculture connection, for domestic purpose, they can absolve themselves of the offence of theft of energy. At this stage, the allegations, contained in the first information report, do not appear to be absurd. At this stage, it cannot be said, that the first information report, was lodged with malafide intention. If any complaint, was made, by the petitioner, or his father, against the Sub Divisional Officer, he could prove the same, during the course of defence evidence. The pleas, which the petitioner, can take, by way of defence, cannot be made a ground, for the purpose of quashing the first information report. No ground, therefore, is made out for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009, and, the same, is liable to be dismissed. Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009 8 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-24965 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 21.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE