Criminal Misc. No.M-13974 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-13974 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Jang Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.L.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Brar, Addl.A.G.Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.37 dated 17.3.20106 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Sirhind District Fatehgarh Sahib. Complainant Harnek Singh Badali moved a complaint against the petitioner to the police and on the basis of the same, FIR in question was registered. It was averred by the complainant that the petitioner had got issued a ration card in his name at village Shahpur. Thereafter, he had got another ration card issued in his name at Forest Colony, Sirhind bearing No.12008. Hence, it was Criminal Misc. No.M-13974 of 2010 2 requested that legal action be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working with Forest Department, Punjab. Earlier he was resident of village Shahpur and was posted in Patiala District and therefore, the petitioner got the ration card issued from Food and Supply Department, Bhadson. After some time the petitioner was transferred to Sirhind and consequently, he shifted to the place of his posting. Before shifting to Sirhind, the petitioner moved an application to Inspector, Food and Supply Department, Bhadson on 11.9.2008 for striking off his name in the ration card. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to the Food and Supply Department, Sirhind on 18.9.2008 for issuance of a new ration card and on the basis of the said application he was issued a new ration card. On coming to know that his name in the earlier ration card had not been cancelled, the petitioner again moved another application on 7.7.2009 for striking off his name from the ration card. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had got issued two ration cards and hence, legal action was liable to be taken against him. 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, Criminal Misc. No.M-13974 of 2010 3 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 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. Criminal Misc. No.M-13974 of 2010 4 (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 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, no criminal offence is made out Criminal Misc. No.M-13974 of 2010 5 against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier got the ration card from Bhadson. After his transfer to Sirhind, the petitioner had moved an application dated 11.9.2008 ( Annexure P-3) that his name in the ration card be cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner had got issued ration card in his name at Sirhind. So far as the family members of the petitioner are concerned, their ration card continued at Bhadson. Since the petitioner had moved an application for striking off his name from the ration card at Bhadson, it cannot be said that he had any intention to defraud. The petitioner got the ration card issued again at Sirhind i.e. his new place of posting. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Apparently, the complainant had lodged the FIR against the petitioner to settle his own personal grievance. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.37 dated 17.3.20106 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sirhind District Fatehgarh Sahib, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2011 anita