Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.N.Chauhan vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.8.2012
P.N.Chauhan
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr..Aman Kashyap, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.284 dated 24.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Giddarbaha, District Muktsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Prosecution story in brief is that petitioner had got published news item in the newspaper `Daily Ajit' on 12.6.2005 (Annexure P-
7) that M/s punjab Beej Bhandar was not authorised dealer of the Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 2 Company, whereas the due licence had been issued by the petitioner on 3.6.2005 in favour of the complainant. The case of the complainant further was that the publication had been got made in the newspaper to mislead the agricultural department and farmers and to defame the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) did not reveal commission of any cognizable offence. In fact, at the most, it would be said that the offence of defamation might have been committed by the petitioner. Qua the offence of defamation, punishable under Section 500 IPC, the complainant could lodge a private complaint.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the The complaint moved by respondent No.2 was also inquired into by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Muktsar and thereaftger, FIR in question was registered.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
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 Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 3 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 4 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 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 in question reveals that respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 5 No.2 was aggrieved by the publication of the news item (Annexure P-
7) in newspaper 'Daily Ajit' on 12.6.2005. The contents of the said news item (Annexure P-7) read as under:-
"All the farmers, purchaser/ brothers, Development officers of Agriculture Department are hereby informed that M/s punjab Beej Bhandar, Gidarbaha District Muktsar is not authorised seller/ dealer of Monsansto India Limited, Mumbai and that no transaction of any type has been made with them for the last one year and nor supplied of any product has been made to the abovesaid M/s Beej Bhandar and their principle certificate has been cancelled. Agricultural Department has also been informed in this behalf. The company will not be responsible for sale of any product of Monsansto Company, by them.
Information issued by Monsansto India Limited, Mumbai "
Thus, the complainant was aggrieved of the incorrect publication of the news item. At the most, the grievance of the complainant can be said to be of defamation on account of the said publication. However, no offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC can be said to have been committed by the petitioner.
Offence of cheating has been defined in Section 415 IPC and the same reads as under:-
"Cheating:Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 6
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." The wrong publication, if any, of the news item, thus, cannot said to be falling within the ambit of offence of cheating.
Offence of forgery has been defined in Section 463 IPC and the same reads as under:-
"Forgery.
Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
The incorrect publication of the news item, if any, also cannot be said to fall within the ambit of Section 463 IPC. Criminal Misc. No.M-52582 of 2006 (O&M) 7
At the most the petitioner can be said to have defamed the complainant by publishing a wrong news item. Punishment qua offence of defamation has been provided under Section 500 IPC. The said offence is non cognizable and hence, the complainant, if aggrieved, could have moved a private complaint in this regard.
Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.284 dated 24.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Giddarbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 30, 2012 anita