Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Kishore vs State Of Punjab on 6 December, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-6118 of 2013 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-6118 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision:December 06,2013
Kamal Kishore ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.K.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing of FIR No.144 dated 3.10.2011 registered under Section 9(B) of Explosives Act, 1884 (`the Act' for short) at Police Station E-Divsion Amritsar (Annexure P1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was having a licence to possess and sell crackers. However, petitioner has been falsely involved in this case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In 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 Raj Kumari 2013.12.10 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-6118 of 2013 (O&M) 2 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 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 Raj Kumari cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 2013.12.10 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-6118 of 2013 (O&M) 3 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 rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or Raj Kumari otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the 2013.12.10 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No.M-6118 of 2013 (O&M) 4 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."
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner was found in possession of fire crackers without any licence. However, Annexure P2 is the licence issued in the name of the petitioner allowing him to sell fire crackers. The said licence is dated 27.3.1990 and was valid upto 31.3.1991. Thereafter, the licence in question was renewed from time to time. As per Annexure P4, the licence of the petitioner was renewed from 19.2.2007 to 31.3.2009. Petitioner had moved an application for renewal of the licence on 20.5.2009. Thereafter, the licence of the petitioner was renewed from 04.10.2011 to 31.3.2015. FIR in question was registered on 3.10.2011. Thus, the petitioner was, initially, issued the licence in the year 1990 authorising him to possess and sell fire crackers. Licence of the petitioner in this regard was renewed from time to time. Presently, also petitioner is having a valid licence to possess and sell fire crackers. In these circumstances, FIR in question is liable to be quashed as continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.144 dated 3.10.2011 registered under Section 9 of the Act at Police Station E Division, Amritsar (Annexure P1) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 06,2013 arya Raj Kumari 2013.12.10 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document