Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:May 20, 2009 Rishipal and another ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Navneet Singh,Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana None for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of complaint (Annexure P-3) in FIR No. 285 dated 19.12.1993 under Sections 148/149/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and summoning order dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P-5 ) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad. FIR in question was registered against the petitioners after investigation of the case. The Investigating agency came to the conclusion Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -2- that the petitioners were innocent. Thereafter, cancellaltion report was submitted but the same was protested by respondent No. 2-Aflaton. The Magistrate treated the case as a complaint case. Respondent no. 2 led his preliminary evidence and on the basis of the same, summoning order Annexure P-5 dated 15.3.2002 was passed. A perusal of order Annexure P- 5 revelas that complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined Subhash as PW-2, Bharat Singh as PW-3, Ramanjeet as PW-4, Dr. C. Paul as PW-5. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in paras 4 and 5 of order dated 15.3.2002(Annexure P-5) has observed as under:- “4. PW-1 complainant Charan Singh deposed that on 19.12.2003 at about 1-00 P.M. He was working in fields along with his brother Bhagat Singh; that his brother Amrish and Ramjeet were also present there; that during this time Channi son of Shamsher who was having gun in his hand. Ganga was having maskat in his hand. Tara having katta and Rishi son of Balbir was having gun and Radhey was also having gun come towards complainant and gave a shot which hit on his back. He reached at Civil Hospital where police recorded his statement which is Ex. P1, PW-2 to PW-4 spoken to the tune of PW1. 5. PW5 Dr. C. Paul deposed that on 19.12.1993 he medico legally examined Charan Singh. He proved MLR as Ex. PW5/A, ruqa as Ex. PW5/B, police requests as Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E police request regarding nature of injury. He deposed that the injury was caused by a fire arm. Hence the petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face trial. Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the police had submitted the cancellation report as the petitioners were found innocent during investigation, no case for summoning the petitioners to face trial was made out. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that now charge has been framed against the petitioners by the trial court. 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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -4- 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 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -5- 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 the 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 summoning order dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P-5) was passed in the year 2002 after the complainant led his preliminary evidence whereas the petition seeking quashing of FIR has been filed in the year 2008. Now, charge has been framed against the petitioners by the trial court by finding a prima facie case against the petitioners. Merely because a cancellation report was filed against the petitioners, no ground for quashing of the complaint is made out. Complainant has led preliminary evidence in support of his case. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 20, 2009 PARAMJIT