Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Ms. Sushma Varma, 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 is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.260 dated 17.04.2009 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC registered at Police Station City Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It is contended that the only grievance of respondent No.2 was that she wanted to stay separately. Accordingly, separate residence was given to her. It is an admitted position that all the articles were shifted to the separate residence occupied by her. As such, the allegations in the FIR are incorrect and false. It is further stated that even injuries suffered by her are on account of some knife cut and the petitioner has not given her any beatings. As such, no offence is made out and the FIR should be quashed on this ground. Heard. Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 2 The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was forced to file complaint against her husband on account of his cruel behaviour. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and his family. Although, the rest of the family has been exonerated, the petitioner stands on a different footing. He is the husband. His responsibility as husband and duty to ensure that the wife is not taunted or harassed in her matrimonial home is entirely his. Further, the allegations in the FIR are as under :- “ But it is a very surprising state of affair that when after the marriage the complainant became pregnant, the accused No.1 after joining hands with other accused persons had asked the complainant that now a new member is coming in their family and as such the complainant should bring a sum of Rs. One lac from her father. Firstly the complainant requested the accused persons with folded hands to the effect that her father is a retired person from medical store, Karnal land (sic). He is not in a position to give such a huge amount as they have recently spent huge amount on her marriage. But the accused persons never kept mum of the matter and the complainant was shunted out from her matrimoninal house by giving severe beatings. Then the complainant after coming to Karnal had narrated her tale of woes to her parents. Then the parents of the complainant went to Ambala Cantt. and gave a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the accused No.1. However, after receiving the said amount, the accused No.1 openly said that they should arrange another sum of Rs.60,000/- within one month if in case they want that their daughter may be settled in her matrimonial home. However, after about two months of the above said episode the father of the complainant sent a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the accused persons and ultimately the complainant gave birth to a daughter, namely, Khawish at Ambala Cantt. After the birth of the girl child, the accused persons became very much annoyed and the Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 3 accused No.2 had removed all the jewellery which the complainant was wearing and snatched the other jewellery which the complainant was having with her and the accused No.1 and 2 demanded a sum of Rs. One lac and one house on the pretext that as she has given birth to a female child and as such, now it is not possible for them to reside in the house where they are residing.” Further, on 22.03.2009 too, the complainant was beaten up. She received injuries. She was medically examined. 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 can 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 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. Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 4 In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported as 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, a note of caution was added that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing an FIR 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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 5 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. 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.” The allegations in the FIR are serious. Therefore, the legitimate litigation cannot be cut short at this stage. The argument as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the injury suffered was on account of knife cut while working in the kitchen can only be adjudicated in trial and after the prosecution is given opportunity to record the evidence. Crl. Misc. No.M-5821 of 2011 6 As such, no ground to quash the FIR is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 24.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet