Crl. Misc. No.M-14116 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-14116 of 2011 Date of Decision: 09.05.2011 Raj Kumar Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Balbir Kumar and another ...Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-14117 of 2011 Raj Kumar Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Balbir Kumar and another ....Respondents Crl. Misc. No.M-14118 of 2011 Raj Kumar Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Balbir Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. R.K. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 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. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-14116 of 2011, Crl. Misc. No.M-14117 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No.M-14118 of 2011 vide a Crl. Misc. No.M-14116 of 2011 2 common order as the parties and dispute, in all the cases, is same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. M-14116 of 2011. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the Criminal Complaint No.171 dated 01.02.2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent, as well as, all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said complaint. While praying for quashing of the above said Criminal Complaint, the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheques were obtained under pressure of the police. Secondly, only the petitioner has been made as a party, whereas, one Ritu Aeron should have been made a party and lastly, the firm is still in existence. The petitioner does not dispute that the cheques have been issued by him. Thus, neither of the above grounds make out a case for quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.171 dated 01.02.2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 890 while discussing the scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as well as, the expression “rarest of rare cases” observed in para 10 as under :- “10. The scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 227 of the Constitution has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing proceedings have been enumerated. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary to burden the judgment by making reference to all the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by Crl. Misc. No.M-14116 of 2011 3 the High Courts under the said provisions are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The powers have to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, where the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.” The grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are arguments to be taken in defence. The allegations in the complaint require to be proved through evidence to be led during the trial. Hence, no case for exercising the extra ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C is made out. Dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 09.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet