Criminal Misc. M.No.10889 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. M No.10889 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 22, 2009 Sukhvir Singh Dhaliwali ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.N.S.Doabia Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. for short) seeking quashing of criminal complaint (Annexure P2) and summoning order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure P3) . The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court, in the impugned order (Annexure P3) is as under:- "Heard. It is alleged that accused to discharge of his legal liabilities issues cheque No.246512 dated 6.9.2005 in favour of complainant. On presentation of said cheque, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 1.3.2006 and 2.3.2006 with remarks “insufficient funds”. Notice demanding the payment was issued within the stipulated period, but the accused was failed to Criminal Misc. M.No.10889 of 2009 2 make the payment. Hence, this complaint.” The summoning order (Annexure P3) was passed on 19.4.2006. As per the allegations in the complaint, a cheque was issued by the petitioner. The cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment and the same bounced with the remarks “insufficient funds” . It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court cases 335, as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases whereinsuch power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, 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 Criminal Misc. M.No.10889 of 2009 3 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 no 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 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 or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for Criminal Misc. M.No.10889 of 2009 4 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." . On the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, summoning order was passed on 19.4.2006. Admittedly, the trial is going on since then. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the points available to him during trial at appropriate stage. Hence, no ground for interference is made out at this stage. Dismissed (Sabina) Judge April 22,2009 arya