Criminal Misc. No.M-23708 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-23708 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Dr.Adeep Bhatnagar and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Arun Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Ritesh Pandey, 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.125 dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as it was complete abuse of process of law. The complainant had no concern with the property in dispute as she had sold the same to Tarsen Raj Verma Criminal Misc. No.M-23708 of 2010 (O&M) 2 vide sale deed dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-3). The complainant was not in possession of the suit property. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the complainant was in possession of the suit property and the petitioners had misappropriated her articles lying in the premises. 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 make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report Criminal Misc. No.M-23708 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended Criminal Misc. No.M-23708 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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.” The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased the house in dispute measuring 7 marlas vide sale deed dated 6.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). She had executed a sale deed in favour of Tarsem Raj Verma on 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-3). However, she was in possession of the house and her dowry articles and other household items were lying in the house. On 29.3.2007, Adeep Bhatnagar in conspiracy with Ravi Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and Sukhdev Kumar entered the house and had misappropriated her articles. Thus, a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the complainant had executed sale deed in favour Tarsem Raj Verma on 9.10.2006 qua the house in dispute. A perusal of the said sale deed (Annexure P-3) reveals that the complainant Mamta Kumari had stated therein that she had handed over the possession to the purchaser and she would be left with no concern with the Criminal Misc. No.M-23708 of 2010 (O&M) 5 house in question. The electric meter, motor connection and submersible pump had also been sold along with the house in dispute. Since the complainant was not in possession of the house in question, there was no occasion for her to lodge the FIR qua misappropriation or theft of her articles. As per Annexure P-3, purchaser Tarsem Raj Verma was already in possession of the house in question at the time of its purchase from the complainant. The complainant had also stated that she had no connection with the house in question after its sale. Hence, the FIR in question is an example of total abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.125 dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-5) under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 23, 2011 anita