CRM No.M-34063 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-34063 of 2010 Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Tarun Kalra ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this petition and emanating from the record is that, complainant-Paras Ram son of Kishan Chand, was the owner of the land in dispute. He had sold his land measuring 68 Kanals 3 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Janoli to M/s Hind Terminals Private Limited through petitioner-accused-Tarun Kalra, its authorised signatory, for a total consideration amount of Rs.2,85,37,813/- . The petitioner-accused paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs in cash and Rs.2,40,78,437/- through draft to the complainant at the time of registration of the sale-deed. He promised to pay the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.42,59,376/- subsequently. According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused told him that a draft of the remaining amount issued by the HSBC Bank, New Delhi, will be sent to him(complainant) later on. On this assurance, the complainant got the sale-deed No.2736 executed and registered on 05.06.2006 in favour of the Company. But the petitioner did not pay the balance amount by way of indicated draft to him, despite repeated requests and legal notice. The matter was reported to the police vide complaint bearing CRM No.M-34063 of 2010 2 No.645P dated 18.04.2007. Thereafter, petitioner-Tarun Kalra, Sudhir Sood, Pawan Kumar and Rama Shankar came to him and handed over a cheque bearing No.816783 dated 11.06.2006, for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-(in figures), but in that cheque, they fraudulently mentioned Rs.12,000/- in words. They have also stopped the payment and the cheque was dishonoured. 2. According to the complainant that when the petitioner sent a reply to the legal notice, then he came to know that all the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy usurped and misappropriated the balance amount of sale consideration by making the draft in the name of Pawan Kumar-accused (not in the name of the complainant). When the complainant approached the accused, then they told him that all the accused have distributed the amount among themselves and got the mutation sanctioned in the name of the Company and nobody can harm them in this respect. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in the FIR in all, according to the complainant that the petitioner and his other co-accused have cheated him, usurped and misappropriated the balance amount of sale consideration of his land. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Paras Ram, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.384 dated 23.10.2010(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, by the police of Police Station Camp Palwal, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the investigating agency and the court, the petitioner straightway filed the instant petition for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the CRM No.M-34063 of 2010 3 entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 6. Ex facie, the routine arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, very vague allegations are alleged against him, the dispute is of a civil nature and since there is a delay in lodging, so the FIR (Annexure P-1) is liable to be quashed, are neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd. and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 261 and of this Court in case Rajinder Aggarwal Vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 03.03.2010, vide CRM No.M-5357 of 2007, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd.'s case(supra), the complainant supplied the goods to the accused persons, but they failed to pay the price thereof. Sequelly, in Rajinder Aggarwal's case(supra), the complainant- M/s Balwant Brothers Pvt.Ltd. was engaged in manufacturing of sports goods and sports wears. The accused approached the complainant for the purchase of sports goods and assured that he would remit the payment very soon. But he failed to remit the payment/price of the goods. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, it was observed that the non-payment of the price of the purchased goods is purely of a civil liability and no criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out. Possibly no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in this relevant connection. 8. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, they have shown a draft of balance amount of sale transaction purported to be in his (complainant) name, but in fact, the same was in the name of Pawan Kumar- accused. The petitioner, who is the main accused, has promised that he would pay the balance amount of sale consideration to him, but instead of paying the amount, CRM No.M-34063 of 2010 4 he cheated the complainant and fraudulently misappropriated his amount. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the petitioner has been falsely implicated or there are vague allegations against him, as urged on his behalf. 9. Likewise, assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted), there is some delay in lodging the report, that ipso facto is not a ground to quash the FIR in this relevant connection. All the essential ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 IPC etc. are complete from the bare reading of the FIR. 10. It is not a matter of dispute that the scope of quashing the FIR, as contemplated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not res integra and is well recognized. It is well-settled proposition of law that in case, on the bare reading, the offences are made therefrom, no order can be made for quashment of the FIR. The FIR can only be quashed in the rarest of the rare cases, only if it is proved that the same was lodged maliciously or vexatiously in order to wreck vengeance and only in that eventuality, the FIR amounts to abuse of process of the Court and not otherwise. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92 in this context. 11. Not only that, all the remaining indicated grounds and contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition are factual in nature and can only be appreciated by the trial Court after evidence is led by the prosecution during the course of trial. 12. Be that as it may, even learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to urge that the present case, in any manner, falls within the ambit of parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and Som Mittal's cases(supra). Hence, the contrary contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. CRM No.M-34063 of 2010 5 Therefore, there is no ground to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1) in exercise of limited inherent jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed as such. 15. Needless to say that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. November 19, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE