IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No. 22726-M of 2008 Date of Decision:16.5.2011 Ajay Singh @ Ajay Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.131 dated 20.7.2007 under Sections 420/406/467/468/120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Zirakpur, District Mohali. While praying for quashing of the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no case against the petitioner is made out in view of the admission of respondent No.2 that he himself had applied for allotment of registration No.0001 in the series HR-37 D for his vehicel Tavera on11.8.2005 alongwith requisite fee of Rs.25,000/- as per the Policy of the State Government for allotment of the said number and in support thereof he has also enclosed receipts/verification of the same which are enclosed as Annexures P- 2 and P-3 with the present petition. The aforesaid admission/receipts Crl. M. No. 22726-M of 2008 -2- clearly nullify the allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in the impugned FIR. It is further contended that respondent No.2 has lodged the aforesaid report after about a delay of 2 years and no explanation regarding the delay has been given in the FIR and so the lodging of the present FIR and proceedings thereon should not be allowed to continue at such a belated stage. Further, respondent No.2 had filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, which was allowed in favour of the complainant and the direction has been issued to the opposite party to issue the registration certificate. Further the petitioner had applied for allotment of registration No.0001 in the series HR-37-D for his vehicel Tavera on 11.8.2005 alongwith the requisite fee of Rs.25,000/- as per the policy of the State Government for allotment of the mentioned number. Thus, the petitioner cannot be blamed. Therefore, no offence is made out. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is a property dealer and he obtained Rs.48,000/- from respondent No.2 to get him the required number. The petitioner, thereafter, demanded Rs.75,000/- more from respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 failed to pay the said amount and as a result he has neither been returned the money nor the petitioner has got him the registration certificate. It is further submitted that the petitioner admitted before the police that he received Rs.48,000/- from respondent No.2. As such, he has accepted his guilt. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. It is submitted in the preliminary objections that challan has already Crl. M. No. 22726-M of 2008 -3- been submitted and the charges have been framed. Even the evidence of the complainant is almost complete. Heard. The allegations in the FIR against the petitioner read as under: “Ajay Kumar came to my office and after discussion Ajay Kumar told me that the 0001 No. can be got by spending Rs.48,000/-. I paid to Ajay Kumar, a sum of Rs.28,000/- and the rest of the amount was to be paid after the preparation of the R.C. and Ajay Kumar took the Rs. And went away. Next day Ajay Kumar came to my office and I was not present and my friend Sh. B hushan Gupta was present and he gave me a ring on my mobile and said that Ajay Kumar is demanding Rs.20,000/- more. I asked Bhushan Gupta to give Rs. 20,000/- more. Next day in the morning, I went to the house of Ajay Kumar who handed over to me three receipts of HR-37-D-0001 receipt and assured that within one week he shall bring registration certificate. At this time one and half year has gone I have been continuously visiting the house of Ajay Kumar for getting the R.C. And I have also gone with Ajay Kumar to Ambala twice or thrice and I have been returning empty handed.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is a matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner took Rs.48,000/- from respondent No.2 to get No.0001 Crl. M. No. 22726-M of 2008 -4- allotted or not and as to whether the money was deposited with the Registration Office by the petitioner or the complainant. Respondent No.2 has further not been able to get RC till date. The order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala, has been stayed by the State Consumer Forum in appeal and the RC has not been allotted to the petitioner or respondent No.2 till date. 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 para 10 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 Crl. M. No. 22726-M of 2008 -5- 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.” Moreover, the charges have already been framed. The complainant has almost completed his evidence. The arguments raised by the petitioner are a matter of defence to be taken up by the petitioner during trial. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the requisite pleas before the trial Court. 16.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE