Crl. Misc. No. M- 30366 of 2008(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 30366 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:May 18, 2009 Smt. Suresh ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.P.C.Suman ,Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 *** SABINA, J. Crl. Misc. No. 25191 of 2009 Application is allowed. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-30366 of 2008 Smt. Suresh -petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')for quashing of FIR No. 64 dated 21.3.2007 under Sections 323, 452, 506,34 Crl. Misc. No. M- 30366 of 2008(O&M) -2- of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sector 31, Chandigarh. Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.3.2007 at about 7.15 a.m., Poonam niece of complainant-respondent No. 2 was attacked by Jai Lal. Jai Lal was armed with danda in his right hand. He gave danda blow on the head of Poonam. Petitioner gave a stone blow on the upper side of the ear of Poonam-injured. On the basis of the statement of the complainant formal FIR was lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case at the instance of Ghisa Ram-brother of complainant-respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have submitted that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 3.4.2008 by the trial court. 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, 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 30366 of 2008(O&M) -3- 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 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 the rare cases; that the court will not be justified in Crl. Misc. No. M- 30366 of 2008(O&M) -4- 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, as per FIR, petitioner and her co-accused had inflicted injuries on the person of injured-Poonam. Petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to her. After investigation of the case challan was presented against the petitioner and her co- acused. Charge has been framed against them by the trial court on 3.4.2008. Hence, at this stage, no ground for quashing of FIR in question is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2009 PARAMJIT