Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17868 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:March 26 , 2010 Majer Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. K.S.Chaudhary,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Sigh Rai,Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr.K.S.Kalon,Advocate for respondent No.4 ** Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.57 dated 19.2.2009 registered under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') at Police Station Kharar,SAS Mohali and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The contents of the FIR, (Annexure P2) read as under:- "To the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab) Sub:Complaint of cheating (i) Majer Singh Bawa Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 2 R/House No.440 Sector 8 Panchkula (Haryana), (ii) Pardeep Kumar (Sharma) R/o Village Bhukhari P.S.Dera Bassi Distt. Mohali, (iii) Sampuran Singh r/o Village Lehly P.S.Lalru, Distt. Mohali (Punjab), (iv) Gurjeet Singh Brother-in-law of Sampuran Singh (v) Sh.Jaspal Singh S/o Ajmer Singh R/o Village Raipur Khurd, Opposite Air port, Chandigarh. Respected Sir, I Baldev Singh aged 63 year RO house No.1168, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh submits as under:-1. That I was interested to purchase some Agriculture Land in and around Zirakpur and for that purpose, I contacted a few property dealers of the area. 2.That in the month of May 2008 above mentioned Sh. Major Singh, Pardeep Kumar Sampuran Singh, Jaspal Singh and brother-in-law of Sampuran Singh approached me and claimed that one acre of land of a person who is resident of delhi situated near silver city, Zirakpur is open for sale. They claimed that land is free from all encumbrances and its title is clear. Since the above persons were well known to me for the last two years and having good relations with me, then I trusted them. 3. That negotiation were held and deal was settled as 1.5 crore for this one acre of Agriculture Land. That deal was finalized at Kharar at the shop of Gurprem Property dealer in presence of S.Kuldip Singh Saini R/o 359, sector 32-A, Chandigarh and S.Manjit Singh RO Sector 2 Panchkula and a sum of Rs.30 lacs in cash was paid to these 5 persons to be Earnest Money of the land to the landlord. At the time of taking these 5 persons stated that sale deed shall be executed within a period of three months 5. That when the period of three months was about Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 3 to close, I contacted these persons who started putting off and even after great insistence they did not disclose me the reason for the delay. That thus I got suspicious and started making enquiries and I came to know that the sum of Rs.30 lacs which was given by me towards earnest money of the land to the land to be sold to me, had in fact not been given to the Land Owner this amount they had misutilized for their use. 6.Thus having come to know, that I have been cheated by them, protested to them and a Panchayat was held in Kharar on 18.11.08 where, in presence of S.Manjit Singh, they admitted that they five had divided the amount equally and Rs.6 lacs was taken by each. I protested that I would give criminal complaint against them. At this Pardeep Kumar issued a cheque No.00014 dated 18.11.08 Rs. 6 lacs in my favour drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank, SCO No.153-154-155, Sector 9- C Chandigarh from the account of one Neelam Ram whom he claimed his wife and also told that this account is in their joint name that after issuance of the cheque, Mr. Pardeep Kumar requested me not to present the cheque for few days. 7. That ultimately on 22nd Deember, 2008, I again contacted Mr.Pardeep Kumar who told that cheque may be presented thus on his assurance, I presented the Cheque with HDFC Bank, Sector 37 Chandigah in my saving account but to my utter surprise, cheque was returned with remarks, `Signature Mismatch'. Thus I made enquiries from bank and it was told to me that Pardeep Kumar is not the joint account holder of this account and that he had intentionally issued the cheque to mislead me and save himself Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 4 from criminal liability (copy of the Cheque and Dishonored Memo is attached as Annexure A. 8.That thus having came to know that I again contacted Mr. Pardeep Kumar but this time, he threatened me of dire consequences in case I dared to ask him this amount again. 9. This thus from the above facts it is evident that S.Major Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Sampuran Singh his brother in law and Jaspal Singh in conspiracy with each other cheated me of a sum of Rs.30 lacs by alluring me to get one acre of land at price of 1.5 crore. Not only this Pardeep Kumar issued a cheque from the account which is not in his name and also threatened me of dire consequences. It is therefore requested that a case be registered and a legal action may kindly be taken against them. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,Sd/-Baldev Singh 12.1.09 R/o House No.1168, Sector 33-C Chandigarh 98728-77522.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case was made out against the petitioner. In fact, no payment had been made to the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, have opposed the petition and have submitted that the petitioner along with his co-accused had misappropriated Rs.30 lakhs in cash. Some of the co-accused had issued cheques qua Rs. 6 lakhs coming to their share. In the Panchayat the accused had admitted their guilt. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 5 “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 wherein such 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 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 Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 6 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 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 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.” Crl.Misc. No.M-17868 of 2009 (O&M) 7 A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused to the effect that they had taken Rs. 30 lakhs in cash from the complainant and had assured the complainant that the sale deed shall be executed within a period of three months in his favour qua one acre of land. However, the petitioner and his co-accused had misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs each. Since there are prima facie specific allegation against the petitioner, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings at this stage and scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge March 26, 2010 arya