CRM No. M 16442 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 16442 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.05.2011 Gaurav Gulati ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 02.04.2011 under Sections 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak, in cross case case and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same and for staying the further proceedings before the trial Court during the pendency of the present petition. The only ground raised by the learned counsel while praying for quashing of the cross case in the aforesaid FIR is that the said FIR was registered after 13 months. Heard. A perusal of the FIR shows that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained. It is stated that the complainant had immediately CRM No. M 16442 of 2011 2 informed the police by dialing 100 from the mobile and had given an application to SHO Police Station, Civil Line, Rohtak and the receipt book No. 41 book No. 55 of which had been issued by the Police Station as well but the police did not take any action against the above said accused . The applicant's brother had also sent a reminder to the SSP Rohtak regarding the same. No action was taken against them. Rather, her father and brother were arrested at the behest of the present petitioner. No FIR was registered in spite of the MLR. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered after a lot of persuasion. In view of the above explanation, the FIR cannot be quashed simply on the ground that there is delay in lodging the same. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a matter of defence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others reported as (2004)1 SCC 691 while relying on the judgment of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported as AIR 1960 SC 866, observed the category of cases, in which, the inherent power should be exercised to quash the proceedings. Para 9 of the same reads as under :- “ 9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not CRM No. M 16442 of 2011 3 constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” Thus, needless to say, that none of the three grounds are available in the facts of the present case. Even as per the judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, a note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 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 paras 10, 11 and 12 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 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 CRM No. M 16442 of 2011 4 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. 11. Although in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the court by way of illustration, formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extra-ordinary power under the afore-stated provisions could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court yet it was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which such power could be exercised. 12. The purport of the expression “rarest of rare cases” has been explained very recently in Som Mittal (supra). Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has said thus : “When the words `rarest of rare cases’ are used after the words `sparingly and with circumspection’ while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words `sparingly and with circumspection’. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. CRM No. M 16442 of 2011 5 The expression “rarest of rare cases” is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection.” Applying the test and the legal position as laid down in the cases of State of Orissa and another, State of MP as well as State of Haryana (supra), the case, in hand, does not all in any of the exceptions as well as the expression 'rarest of rare cases' wherein, the FIR can be quashed while exercising power under under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 26.05.2011 mohan