Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2010 Gurbir Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Paramjit Deol, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.156 dated 8.6.2010 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and export Herbal medicines and my father is also into same practice but lives separate from us and my mother Hardeep Kaur is house wife. We are two brothers and the elder brother Sumit Pal Singh is married. I am the younger and I got married in 2007 with Parminder Kaur Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) 2 d/o Gurbir Singh r/o Pichhal Bazar, Shimla Himachal Pradesh who is residing with her parents from over last 9 months and she is mentally upset and I got her treated from Jalandhar City but she could not be cured. My in- laws and my wife then filed a case under dowry Act in Shimla Court which is pending. That yesterday dated 7.6.2010 near about 5 p.m. I was at my residence 159, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar GTB Nagar Jalandhar and my mother along with my brother have gone to Amritsar and I was all alone at the home that time my father-in-law Jasbir Singh son of Malook Singh and my brother-in-law Gaganbir Singh son of Gurbir Singh and maternal father- in-law Jasbir Singh resident of Shimla HP came to my home when I was sitting in my drawing room wherein, straightway my father-in-law Gurbit Singh said that we have come to talk to you and you sit down to settle down the matter with us as we don's want our daughter Parminder @ Ruhi to live with you as we want to remarry her. On this I said that I will not divorce Parminder Kaur on which father in-law hitted me on my left upper arm and my brother-in-law gave me blow on my back and my maternal father-in-law kicked me on my left knee with his boot and my taya father-in-law Jasbir Singh hitted me near my genitals on which I raised an alarm hearing Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) 3 which my father -in-law and others ran away with their weapons and the same time my friend Gurpreet Singh r/o Hassanpur P.S.Lambran, Jalandhar came and he shifted me to Civil Hospital for treatment where the doctor treated me and prepared my MLR which I have given to you. I was hitted by my father-in-law, brother-in-law and taya father-in-law and material father-in-law in connivance with each other and now I am going to the police station so that an action can be taken against them.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. 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:- Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) 4 (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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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.” In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners had inflicted injuries on the person of Criminal Misc. No.M-26661 of 2010 (O&M) 6 complainant on 7.6.2010 at about 5.00 p.m.. The plea taken by the petitioners that in fact, on the alleged day of occurrence, they were not present at the spot but had gone to Shimla cannot be taken in consideration at this stage. The plea of alibi can be taken by the petitioners in their defence during trial. However, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient or in the interest of justice to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 10, 2010 anita