Anita Chaudhary, J.@mdashPetitioner along with his brother Feman Kumar Pandey (non-petitioner), have been arraigned as accused in FIR No. 51 dated 19.08.2013, registered under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana is seeking quashing of the FIR in the petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The impugned FIR has been registered at the instance of Mohan Lal Birdi containing the allegations that the complainant engaged the petitioner as Clerk on a monthly salary of Rs. 5000/- at his petrol pump, M/s. Raikot Filling Station, Raikot. The complainant reposing full faith handed over signed cheque book and letter heads of the company to the accused. The complainant came to know in the month of March 2013 that the accused had been convicted in some case and had been sent to jail. The complainant started looking after his business and then came to know that the accused had misused the cheques and his signed documents and had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 20 lacs from the sale proceeds and had transferred the amount from the credit limit loan account. When the complainant confronted the accused on his release from jail, the accused criminally intimidated him. On these broad allegations, the FIR was registered.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was inducted as a partner by the complainant, after receiving Rs. 7 lacs and Annexure P-1 was executed. He has further contended that it is the petitioner who has been cheated by the complainant and in this regard the petitioner has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the complainant from alienating the petrol pump in question and had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 382, 406, 420 and 506 IPC, against the complainant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Let us first refer to the law enunciated by Hon''ble Apex Court dealing with the cases relating to the quashing of the FIR.
6. Broad guidelines have been framed by the Hon''ble Apex Court for exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of
105. 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 u/s 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 F.I.R. Do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 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 F.I.R. 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 as contemplated u/s 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.
7. In
The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. It if appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that even there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.
8. To hold that a Criminal Complaint can be quashed only if it does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, similar view point has been reiterated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in
9. Let us now advert to the facts of present case. In the instant case, both the parties are levelling allegations of cheating and forgery. The pleas raised by the petitioner above, involve disputed questions of fact and can only be ascertained by the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is yet to be determined, whether the agreement was executed by the complainant. The issue of induction of petitioner as a partner in the petrol pump, five years prior to the allotment of the petrol pump, is also in dispute. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case and the trial Court has to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. There are questions which have to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence that would be led by the parties. It has been laid down in catena of judgments 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, which is not the case here.
10. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the petition is dismissed. However, whatever has been said hereinabove is without any prejudice to the case of the petitioner that may be set up by him.
