CRM No. 9876 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. 9876 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.4.2010 Jatinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of FIR No.20 dated 12.1.2010 under Sections 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station, Chandi Mandir, Panchkula. Heard. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-2) read as under:- “ Sir, it is submitted that an FIR No.249 dated 10.11.2009 under Sections 379, 380 IPC was registered at Police Station Chandi Mandir on the complaint of Jitender Kumar under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on account of theft of service pistol along with 10 live cartridges which was firstly investigated by Sub Inspector CRM No. 9876 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Kartar Singh and later on same was investigated by me. On the investigation, it was found that HC Jitender Singh was allotted a pistol 19 COLK No. EYG402 and 10 cartridges 9 M on 19.12.2005 at police line Kot and same was issued in the year 2005 from police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. There are signature of HC Jitender Singh on the register. On 13.10.2006 on promotion HC Jitender Singh was transferred to the District Ambala but on transfer, HC Jitender did not deposit the service pistol and cartridges allotted to him on temporary basis. On this, the officers sent two fax/telegrams messages to HC Jitender Singh through Superintendent of Police, Ambala to deposit the service pistol and cartridges. K/ASI Satpal was also sent HC Jitender Singh for depositing the service pistol. But HC Jitender Singh did not deposit the service pistol. On which a departmental enquiry has been started against him on 16.11.2009. On the departmental enquiry, it was found that HC has intentionally registered the above noted case to cheat the department which was found false and untrue and a cancellation report was filed in the said case. It seems that HC Jitender Singh has misappropriated the allotted service pistol. The report of which is submitted to you for taking further action. Sd/ Janggher Inspector/SHO, Chandi Mandir, District CRM No. 9876 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Panchkula dated 12.1.2010.” 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 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 CRM No. 9876 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 CRM No. 9876 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of his service pistol along with ten live cartridges. In these circumstances, no ground for quashing of FIR at this stage is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) April 21, 2010 JUDGE anita