Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avinash Chander And Others And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 31 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.8.2012
Avinash Chander and others and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.K.B.Raheja, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 25.4.2007 under Section 420/ 467/ 468/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Jallalabad, District Fazilka (Annexure P-4) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Ramesh Kumar had borrowed some amount from Avinash Chander. Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank papers and on the basis of the same a forged rent deed was prepared.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was owner of the shop measuring one marla. The said shop had been given on rent to respondent No.2 on 7.12.2002 for eleven months at a monthly rent of ` 1500/- per month. The rent note in this regard was scribed by Darshan Bajaj, deed writer. Respondent No.2 had, however, failed to pay the rent and hence, ejectment petition was filed by petitioner No.1. In the said petition, respondent No.2 had failed to appear as a witness and had, thus, failed to establish that the rent deed in question is a forged and fabricated document. The ejectment petition filed by petitioner No.1 was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 1.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). The criminal proceedings with regard to the same rent note were liable to the quashed.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
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, Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M) 3 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M) 4 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 otherwise of the allegations made in the Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M) 5 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." In the present case, the dispute relates to rent note dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure P-1). On the basis of the same rent note, petitioner No.1 had filed the ejectment petition against respondent No.2. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 1.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). A perusal of the said order reveals that in the said petition, respondent No.2 had taken up the plea that the rent note in question was a forged and fabricated document. However, respondent No.2 had failed to establish the said fact. Rather respondent No.2 had failed to appear in the witness box to deny the execution of the rent note in question. Before execution of the rent note by respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner No.1, he had sold the property in dispute to petitioner No.1 vide sale deed dated 7.11.2002. Respondent No.2 had failed to establish in the ejectment proceedings that the sale deed in question had not been executed by him. Admittedly, the appeal filed by respondent No.2 against the order dated 1.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) has been dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2009 (Annexure P-5). Thus, the ejectment orders against respondent No.2 with regard to shop in dispute, on the basis of rent note in question, have attained finality. Since the genuineness of rent note in question has been upheld in the ejectment proceedings by the Rent Controller, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, on the basis of the same rent Criminal Misc. No.M-28937 of 2011 (O&M) 6 note, would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.38 dated 25.4.2007 under Section 420/ 467/ 468/ 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Jallalabad, District Fazilka (Annexure P-4) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 31, 2012 anita