Joginderpal Singh Mann and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 56 dated 13.4.2002 (Annexure P-6), u/s 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short) read with Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''Act'' for short) (deleted later on), order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-12) whereby charge u/s 467 IPC was framed against the petitioners and order dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure P-13) whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR in question had been registered after a long delay. The matter had been duly inquired at different stages and the allegations levelled in the FIR, were found to be false. Respondent No. 2 took loan from the bank to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- for purchase of diesel engine. Out of the said amount, Rs. 25,000/- were paid to the complainant in cash whereas with regard to remaining amount, the same was paid to Kalgidhar Machinery Store vide cheque to enable the complainant to purchase diesel engine. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Annexure P-1 duly issued by the firm and affidavit Annexure P-4, sworn by complainant Mukhtiar Singh.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that Rs. 25,000/- had been paid in cash to respondent No. 2 but he had not been given delivery of diesel engine nor had been paid Rs. 10,000/- i.e. remaining loan amount.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , 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 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 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 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.

As per the FIR, complainant took loan from Mansa Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited, Mansa to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 25,000/- had been paid to the complainant but the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- had not been paid to him.

Admittedly, loan had been taken by the complainant in the year 1997 whereas the FIR in question was lodged in the year 2002 on the basis of complaint made by the complainant in January 2001. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that the bank had sanctioned loan in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- in favour of the complainant. With the consent of the complainant, Rs. 9500/- had been paid to M/s. Kalgidhar Machinery Store by the bank. Annexure P-1 is the receipt issued by Kalgidhar Machinery Store with regard to receipt of Rs. 9500/- from complainant Mukhtiar Singh. Annexure P-4 is the affidavit executed by the complainant that he had received the engine from the firm i.e. Kalgidhar Machinery Store. The said affidavit was executed by the complainant on 7.10.1997. A perusal of the inquiry report submitted by S.P. (Detective) dated 16.6.2003 Annexure P-7 reveals that the bill Annexure P-1 had been duly issued by M/s. Kalgidhar Machinery Store. The said firm had since been closed on account of death of Satpal Singh in the year 1999. On many occasions the matter had been duly inquired by different police officials and it was recommended that there was no substance in the complaint submitted by the complainant and it was recommended that cancellation report be prepared. The inquiry reports submitted by various police officials inspire confidence as the loan had been taken by the complainant in the year 1997 and receipt had been issued by Kalgidhar Machinery Store on 9.8.1997 with regard to payment of Rs. 9500/- by the complainant for purchase of diesel engine. Complainant had executed an affidavit Annexure P-4 on 7.10.1997 with regard to receipt of the engine. In case the complainant had not received the engine in the year 1997, he would have raised hue and cry. Complainant, however, lodged the complaint before Deputy Commissioner on 12.1.2001. The delay in lodging the complaint itself makes the complaint doubtful. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the bill Annexure P-1 had not been issued by Kalgidhar Machinery Store and affidavit Annexure P-4 had not been executed by the complainant. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 56 dated 13.4.2002 (Annexure P-6), u/s 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC including the order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-12), order dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure P-13) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.