In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Avtar Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 156 dated 20.4.2009, under Sections 406/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar as well as all subsequent proceedings. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-4) read as under:- “ 1) That the applicants Mahesh Chopra, son of Sh.Muni Lal Chopra is owner of Muni Lal Chopra is owner of Muni Lal Chopra Hospital, B-361, The Mall, Amritsar and I am a peaceful and law abiding citizen. 2) That the applicant wanted to purchase a property. 3) That the applicant talked to Sanjay Khanna son of Sh.Mohinderpal who is doing the work of property dealer to get him some property for residing on which Sanjay Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Khanna showed him a property bearing No.A-45, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and since the applicant liked that property, the deal of the property was struck with the aforesaid person Avtar Singh and Amarjit Kaur for an amount of Rs.1 crore 37 lacs. Regarding this an agreement dated 17.11.2007 was entered into between Avtar Singh and Amarjit Kaur and the applicant Mahesh Chopra. 4) That as per the agreement the sale deed was to be executed on 15.4.2008 by Avtar Singh and Amarjit Kaur in favour of the applicant Mahesh Chopra after getting NOC from the Indian Overseas Bank and after getting the mutation of inheritance and after taking the remaining amount and after this the aforesaid Avtar Singh and Amarjit Kaur assured the applicant that more money is to be paid to the Indian Overseas Bank and with a bad intention and with an intention to defraud the applicant and to cause gain to themselves, in connivance with each other, they demanded more amount of ` 20 lacs from the applicant and said that the money is to be deposited in the Indian Overseas Bank. Regarding this, a pay order No.007851 for an amount of ` 20.00 lacs dated 12.2.2008 drawn in favour of M/s Manoher Cycle Works Loan A/c No.1001 drawn on the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Branch Shastri Market, Amritsar, was handed over to Avtar Singh and Amarjit kaur, because Avtar Singh is the proprietor of M/s Manohar cycle Works and on this the intention of the aforesaid Avtar Singh and Amrjit Kaur became bad and they took another amount of ` 10.00 lacs vide cheque No.189561 dated 30.4.2008 for an amount of ` 10.00 lcas from the applicant and afterwards, the same was cleared in the locan account No.1001 of the Indian Overseas Bank of Avtar Singh on 1.5.2008. After this, an amount of ` 5.00 lacs was received by Avtar Singh in cash by putting his signatures on the agreement to sell. But the intention of Amarjit kaur and Avtar Singh was bad since the beginning and till 15.4.2008 and after that they did not obtain the NOC from the bank and neither got the mutation of inheritance executed, whereas, an amount of ` 31.00 lacs was taken from the applicant with an intention to defraud him and to cause gain to themselves. After this, the applicant went to the aforesaid persons and demanded their money but Avtar Singh, his son and Amarjit Kaur give threats to the applicant and neither they are returning the money and neither there is any value of this agreement and they are giving threats to kill the applicant. 5) That the aforesaid persons in connivance with each other, have Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -4- taken an amount of ` 37 lacs from the applicant fraudulently, whereas, the aforesaid property has not been cleared by the Bank till now. The aforesaid persons in connivance with each other to cause gain to themselves have committed this misdeed. Therefore, the applicant prays to your goodself that FIR be registered against the accused under the aforesaid session and justice be done to the applicant. I shall be highly obliged.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no criminal offence was made out in this case. The matter in dispute is purely civil in nature. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Dalip Kaur vs. Jagnar Singh 2009 (0) AIJEL SC 44091; Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 548; M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and others 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 740; Amir Chand and another vs. Prem Chand 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 491; Ram Biraji Devi and another vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 308; Manisha Goyal vs. State of Punjab 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 162 and Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar 2004(0) AIJEL SC 35669. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -5- 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 the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -6- 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -7- 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 an agreement to sell was executed on 17.11.2007 between the parties qua sale of property for a sum of ` 1,37,00,000/-. As per the agreement, sale deed was to be executed on 15.4.2008 by the petitioner and Amarjit Kaur in favour of respondent No.2 after getting no objection certificate from Indian Overseas Bank and thereafter, they were to obtain mutation of inheritance in their favour. The remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, the petitioner and his co-accused failed to get no objection certificate from the bank or mutation of inheritance in their favour. ` 31,00,000/- were paid by the complainant towards earnest money. It has been further averred in the FIR that the accused from the very beginning had the intention to cheat and defraud the complainant. Criminal Misc. No.M-30681 of 2010 (O&M) -8- Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for quashing of the FIR at the initial stage is made out. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 15, 2010 anita