Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joga Singh vs State Of Punjab & Another on 26 May, 2014
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision:26.05.2014
Joga Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gazi Mohd., DAG, Punjab.
Mr. B.R.Bansal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
Anita Chaudhry, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of F.I.R. No.11 dated 14.01.2010 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at police station Beas, District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Few facts will unfold the case: The District Manager of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'PSWC') lodged a FIR levelling allegations of forgery and cheating. They named six persons whose involvement was suspected by them. A suit of recovery for over Rs.25 lacs was filed against M/s R.K.Rice Mills, Tangra, which was decreed on 23.05.1998. Subsequent to the passing of the decree, PSWC wrote to the revenue officials asking for details of the property owned by Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar- defendant. The SDM forwarded the details along with copy of Fard Bura Sonia 2014.05.28 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 -2- Haquit. The allegations are that Ramesh Chander with an intention to play fraud on PSWC sold his property to Gurinderjit Singh, his close relative, vide sale deed on 01.02.2000 knowing fully well that a decree had been passed against him and the property had been attached. Allegations were made that the revenue officials had connived and the sale deed was made in favour of relative of Ramesh Chander with an intention to cheat the complainant. The revenue record was attested by Joga Singh, Kanungo. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the mutation on 17.06.2008. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR was registered.
The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR on the plea that if the complaint is allowed to be investigated, it would amount to an abuse of power by the police. It was pleaded that the petitioner was not to gain anything and the complainant had named four persons but the challan had been filed only against two and the case of the petitioner was similar to the other accused, who were found innocent.
Upon notice, the State had appeared and filed their affidavit detailing the facts, which is a reproduction of the complaint. Additionally, it was pleaded that PSWC had written to the revenue authorities and the property had been attached and could not have been sold and Ramesh Kumar in connivance with Jagtar Singh, Patwari and Joga Singh, Kanungo, fraudulently got the mutation sanctioned with an intention to cheat and the matter was thoroughly investigated and the persons whose involvement was not found, were left out and challan had been presented against Ramesh Chander @ Ramesh Kumar, Joga Singh and Jagtar Singh, Patwari.
Bura Sonia 2014.05.28 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 -3-
Respondent No.2 had also filed his reply.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides.
The argument put-forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the case of Joga Singh, Kanungo was similar to that of the Patwari, who has been let off and the inquiry report is Annexure P-4. It was contended that the person at fault was the official, who had prepared the jamabandi Ex.P-3, who has not been challaned by the police and the petitioner was not to gain anything and the FIR be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State had submitted that Baljinder Singh, Patwari gave a representation, which was marked to S.P. (Detective) Amritsar-Rural who conducted a detailed inquiry and it was found that Jagtar Singh, Patwari had made the entry in the jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and he had found that Baljinder Singh, Patwari was not at fault as he had been posted only in September, 2007. It was urged that Annexure P-4 is of no help to the petitioner as his role was clear and challan had been submitted and charge had been framed and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
The question that comes up for examination is whether the FIR can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. The question had been widely debated before this Court and various other High Courts and there are series of decisions and this question has been answered by this Court and also the Apex Court in State of Haryana & others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others, AIR 1992 SC 604. The Apex Court has examined at length and series of decisions and had expounded the law and had laid down guidelines where such powers should be exercised, which are as under: Bura Sonia 2014.05.28 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 -4-
" In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 channelised 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 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 uncontrovered 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 a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate Bura Sonia 2014.05.28 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 -5- 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 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."
The power of quashing criminal proceedings can only be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that in the rarest of rare cases; and the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.
Reverting to the present case and on going through the allegations made in the complaint in my considered opinion, it is found that there are allegations which can prima facie constitute an offence. No mala fides have been alleged. The police had investigated the matter and had filed a report against the petitioner and the trial has commenced. The allegations made in the complaint do clearly Bura Sonia 2014.05.28 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-25374 of 2011 -6- constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not fall under any of the categories of cases formulated by the Apex Court in the case referred above calling for exercise of inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR.
Resultantly, the present criminal petition is dismissed.
26.05.2014 (ANITA CHAUDHRY)
sonia JUDGE
Bura Sonia
2014.05.28 14:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh