Ashok Kumar vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by Ashok Kumar u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (''Cr.P.C. for short'') for quashing of

FIR No. 37 dated 16.4.2008, under Sections 457, 380, 448, 511, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police

Station Lambra, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings.

Translated version of the FIR as given in Annexure P-1 reads as under:

Statement of Gurchran Dass son of Tarsem Lal caste adharmi resident of village Tajpur colony, aged about 40 years. That I am the resident of the

aforementioned address and am doing the work of leather at Jalandhar and I am the president of Guru Ravi Dass Sudhar Sabha of my colony for

the last three years and today I had returned from my work and was present at my house, then the Vice President of our Gurudwara Sahib,

Darshan Lal son of Gurdass Mal came to my house and told me that Sarpanch Ashok Kumar, Balvir Billa son of Joga Ram, Dwarka Dass son of

Munshi Ram, Baljit son of Dwarka Dass, Ladi wife of Baljit Member Panchayat, Harbhajan Lal son of Gurnam Dass, Rattan Lal and Munshi Ram

have gathered near plot No. 154 Gurudwara Street and Sarpanch Ashok Kumar is armed with a hammer and by gathering together are preparing

to take possession of the plot No. 154 which is in possession of our Gurudwara. Upon which I and Darshan Lal and the resident of the village--,

Madan Lal ran and reached the spot where Sarpanch Ashok Kumar broke the lock of Gurudwara with the hammer, Dwarka Dass told Rattan Lal

to throw every thing outside from the room, upon which Ashok Kumar, Balvir, Rattan Lal and Munshi Ram all together started throwing the

Gurudwara utensils comprising of dishes, plates, glasses, buckets etc. outside and in order to take possession they started keeping their goods

inside the room. On hearing the noise other people of the village also gathered, and all these person stole the utensils from the Gurudwara and ran

away from the spot. They also raised threats to kill us. That the aforementioned person have committed the entire occurrence with common

intention to take possession of plot No. 154 belong to the Gurudwara Sahib and with the intention to take away the goods. I am aggrieved.

Necessary legal action may kindly be taken against the accused. The time of the occurrence was about 9.00 p.m.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence was made out against the petitioner and he has been falsely involved in this

case being Sarpanch of village.

In the case of R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 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

u/s 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 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 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 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 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.

In the present case, the allegations as levelled in the FIR against the petitioner are that he along with others gathered near plot No. 154

Gurdwara Street and operation was to take its possession. The petitioner was allegedly armed with hammer and broke the lock of the Gurudwara.

Dwarka and Rattan Lal, co accused, threw everything lying in the room outside. Petitioner and others also started throwing the utensils of the

Gurudwara outside. After investigation, challan has been presented against the petitioner and four others.

Keeping in view the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal''s case (supra), no ground for quashing the FIR is made out.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the pleas available to him as per law at the time of

framing of charge before the trial Court.