IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.19291-M of 2009 Date of Decision:7.9.2010 Rani Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 6 to 10. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.452 dated 28.7.2005 registered under Sections 420/468/34 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda qua the petitioner only. The FIR in question was registered at the instance of seven complainants who have allegedly been cheated by petitioner's husband Pawan Kumar. Allegations by most of the complainants are that petitioner's husband Pawan Kumar borrowed certain amount of money by developing friendly relations with them. However, the allegations by two complainants are that they were cheated by way of forged agreements to sell for fictitious plots. No complicity of the petitioner at all has been shown in the commission of alleged crimes. The only allegation against the petitioner is as under: “ I came to know that accused Pawan Kumar has cheated many people of Bathinda city and outsiders by making Crl. M. No.19291-M of 2009 -2- transactions with them. Then I met Pawan Kumar's wife Rani and she assured to get my meeting with Pawan Kumar but later on started giving threats and got closed the shop Rani Furniture House and refused to return my money and said that neither we will give you money nor will we return the material, you do whatever you like.” The entire thrust of the allegation is against the husband of the petitioner namely Pawan Kumar. There is not an iota of allegation against the present petitioner that she had connived with Pawan Kumar to cheat the complainants or that she had any knowledge of the activities of her husband. Even if the contents of the FIR are accepted to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner. No culpability at all has been attributed to the petitioner by any of the complainants. The petitioner has been enropped just to put pressure on her husband, who is rather the only accused. The allegations against the petitioner as alleged that she closed down the shop while refusing to return the money does not show in any way that she had joined her husband to cheat the complainants or that she had induced them in any way to give the money or that she even had knowledge that they had given the money. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in para 103 of the said judgment gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection an that too in the rarest of rare cases. Further, in para 102 listed the categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or Crl. M. No.19291-M of 2009 -3- otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The same were listed as under: 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. 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 engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings 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. Crl. M. No.19291-M of 2009 -4- 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. In the present case, there is no allegation against the present petitioner which may satisfy the ingredients of Sections 420 an 468 IPC. The entire allegation is against her husband. Thus, the facts of the present case are fully categorized under category (1) of the list of cases where the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.452 dated 28.7.2005 registered under Sections 420/468/34 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner only. 7.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE