Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 1. Vipin Singhi son of Sh. Ajit Rai, r/o H. No. 45-B, Preet Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala. 2. Nipin Kumar @ Pappu Sh. Ajit Rai, r/o H. No. 45-B, Preet Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala. ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Punjab. 2. Mahinder Pal son of Sh. Jasvir Singh, r/o H. No. 47-B, Preet Nagar, Tripuri, Patiala. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. None for respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 490, dated 31.12.08, under Sections 148, 323, 427, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, P.S. Tripuri, Patiala (Annexure P1), and the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, has been filed by the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 30.12.08, the complainant alongwith his mother Kamaljit Kaur and sister Inderjit Kaur, was present, in his house, when the petitioners alongwith their co- petitioners, forcibly entered into his house, holding deadly weapons, in their hands, and started abusing them. They also threatened the complainant and his family to kill them. Vipin Singhi took off the turban of the complainant. He pinned him down. Abisekh manhandled the mother of the complainant and pushed her, resulting into her fall. Hue and cry, was raised, which attracted their neighbourers, Amandeep Singh son of Daljit Singh resident of Indira Puri and Davinder Pal Singh Chadha (maternal uncle of the complainant), who saved them from their clutches. It was stated that, the main reason behind the aforesaid incident, was that, Parabjot Singh brother of the complainant, was friendly to petitioner's No. 1 daughter namely Sakshi. It was further stated that the petitioners alongwith their co-petitioners, while forcibly entering into the house of the complainant, also broke his costly household items. Ultimately, the aforesaid FIR, was got registered. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, no offence whatsoever, was committed, by the petitioners, but they had been falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1, submitted a representation, to the DIG, Patiala Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 3 Range, Patiala, for cancellation of the FIR. He further submitted that, in that representation, it was specifically stated by petitioner No.1, that brother of respondent No. 2/complainant, used to trouble his daughter and, in order to dissuade him, from his action, a complaint, was made, to respondent No. 2 and his mother. He further submitted that, as a counter-blast, the instant, FIR, was got registered. He further submitted that the FIR, was got registered, with malicious intention. He further submitted that continuation of FIR and the subsequent proceedings, would amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No. 1, submitted that, after due enquiry into the matter, the Investigating Agency, came to the conclusion, that the petitioners, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 323, 427, 452 and 506 IPC. He further submitted that the factual dispute, between the parties, cannot be adjudicated upon, in this petition, the same being of summary nature. He further submitted that, there is nothing, on the record, to indicate that, the FIR, was got registered, as a counter-blast, or with a malicious intention. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 4 such orders, as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out, in the complaint, or the charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that in the following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 5 1)Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, 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 not 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 a Magistrate as contemplated under Section Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 6 155(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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 7 and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified. 7. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is applicable, to the same, or not. There are specific allegations, in the FIR, to the effect, that the petitioners alongwith their co-petitioners, trespassed into the house of respondent No. 2 and pinned him down and manhandled his mother. They also threatened to kill the complainant and caused damage to his household articles. An enquiry, was conducted, by the Investigating Agency, and it was found, that the offences, punishable under Section 451 IPC, instead of 452 IPC and other offences, were made out. The bare perusal of the allegations, contained in the FIR also constitute the offence, punishable under Section 451 IPC as also other offences. The probable defence of the accused, if any, cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Such a probable defence, can be taken, by the accused, during the trial of the case. The disputed facts, as to whether, the brother of respondent No. 2, was allegedly troubling the daughter of petitioner No. 1, which fact, has been denied, by the complainant, can only be finally determined, during the trial of the case. The proceedings, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being of summary nature, such a disputed question of fact, cannot be decided therein. Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009 8 Continuation of the FIR, as also the subsequent proceedings, would not amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. No ground, therefore, is made out, for exercising the power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR, and the subsequent proceedings. 8. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-23318 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 9. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 22.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE