Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.8.2011 Krishan Baldev ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.291 dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. Civil Suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of agreement to sell in question was pending. The FIR in question had been lodged by respondent No.2 to pressurize the petitioner in the civil case. Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the agreement to sell in question had not been executed by respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were having dealings with each other as the petitioner was doing the business of commission agent and respondent No.2 was selling his crop to the petitioner. The petitioner had misutilised the blank paper which already had the thumb impression of respondent No.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held 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 wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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.” A perusal of the FIR in question (Annexure P-1) reveals that the case of the complainant was that he was selling his crop through the petitioner, who was doing the business of commission agent. The petitioner had taken the signatures of respondent No.2 on a blank paper and had forged the agreement to sell in question on the same. The petitioner had taken the signatures of his accountant on the agreement to sell. The agreement to sell in question (Annexure P-2) is dated 11.5.1998. A perusal of the same reveals that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.5.2001. Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure P-3), the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 16.6.2003. The petitioner had filed a suit for Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) 5 specific performance of agreement to sell in question alleging therein that although he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but respondent No.2 had failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. Respondent No.2 filed his written statement in the said suit. A perusal of the written statement (Annexure P-6) reveals that respondent No.2 had only taken the plea that the agreement to sell, if any, was fraudulent, false and fabricated document as he had never entered into any agreement with the petitioner. The execution of the agreement to sell in question was denied. However, no such plea was taken by respondent No.2 that the agreement to sell in question had been created on a blank paper, which already had the thumb impression of respondent No.2. It is only in the year 2010, the complainant lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that the agreement to sell in question had been created on a blank paper which already had his thumb impression. It appears that the FIR in question has been lodged by respondent No.2 as a counter blast to the suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of agreement to sell in question. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the petitioner has already resorted to his civil remedy. Respondent No.2 at the time of filing of the written statement did not take up the plea that his thumb impression had been obtained by the petitioner on a blank paper and the same had been misutilised by him in order to create the agreement to sell in question. Admittedly, written statement was filed by respondent No.2 on 30.7.2003. The original agreement to sell in question was allegedly placed on record on 23.11.2004. The petitioner closed his Criminal Misc. No.M-38006 of 2010 (O&M) 6 evidence on 23.1.2007. On 15.7.2009, the document expert gave the report that the alleged thumb impressions of respondent No.2 were already available on the blank paper on both the sides and thereafter, the disputed agreement to sell and endorsement qua extension of time for execution of the sale deed had been typed thereon. The fact that respondent No.2 took so long in taking up this plea that his thumb impression was already available on a blank paper with the petitioner and the same gives rise to a presumption that the said plea is an afterthought and has been taken as a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.291 dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Patiala, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 08, 2011 anita