Case: Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi

alleging offences under Sections 418, 420, 423, 469, 504 and 120-B IPC. This Court held as follows : "8. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, making it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly-defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :""102. (1) Where the allegation 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 non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.(5) Where the allegation 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 preceding 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." 9. In the decision this Court added 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". xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 16." Judged on the touchstone of the principles noted above, the present case, in our considered view warranties interference inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC and its allied offences under Sections 418 and 423 has not been made out. So far as the offences under Sections 469, 504 and 120-B are concerned even the basic allegation making out a case thereunder are not contained in the complaint. That being the position the case comes within the first category of cases enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and as such warrants interference by the Court. Reading the averments in the complaint in entirety and accepting the allegations to be true, the ingredients of intentional deception on the part of the accused right at the beginning of the negotiations for the transaction has neither been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in the complaint. All the respondent 2 has alleged against the appellants is that they did not disclose to him that one of their brothers had filed a partition suit which was pending. The requirement that the information was not disclosed by the appellants intentionally in order to make respondent 2 part with the property is not alleged expressly or even impliedly in the complaint. Therefore the core postulate of dishonest intention in order to deceive the complainant-respondent 2 is not made out even accepting all the averments in the complaint on their face value. In such a situation continuing the criminal proceeding against the accused will be, in our considered view, an abuse of the process of the Court. The High Court was not right in declining to quash the complaint and the proceeding initiated on the basis of the same." Undoubtedly there could be interference in rarest or rare cases. However, one which would be when the complaint itself does not disclose any offence. In this case, as set out hereinabove, the complaint merely pointed out that the goods had been entrusted to the petitioners and that the same, even though accepted and even though Lorry Receipt had been issued, were not delivered and were withheld. On those facts Police had to enquire whether there was any criminal breach of trust and forgery as claimed. On these facts it could not be said that the Police should not have registered an FIR and/or to make an enquiry. 11. In our view, the High Court was right in dismissing the petition. No case has been made out for interference at all. As the petitioners have stalled enquiries for the last over 2-1/2 years, we direct that the Police should now complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and submit the final report in accordance with law. It is clarified that the Police are at liberty to seize and/or attach the goods and remove the same from the godown of the petitioners to some other place, if they so choose.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. In our view, the High Court was right in dismissing the petition. No case has been made out for interference at all. As the petitioners have stalled enquiries for the last overyears, we direct that the Police should now complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and submit the final report in accordance with law. It is clarified that the Police are at liberty to seize and/or attach the goods and remove the same from the godown of the petitioners to some other place, if they so choose.