Krishan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by Krishan Kumar u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing the FIR No. 169/2007 dated 24.8.2007 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Sonepat.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made to Education Minister, Haryana. The case of the complainant as per the FIR (Annexure P-1) reads as under:

it is submitted that we are all poor ladies are earning our livelihood by doing labour and animal husbandry work. Shri Krishan Dhankhar formed as Self Group in our village Bainyapur. We all ladies used to deposit Rs. 100/- each per month from our saving. After 1-1/2 years a loan of our group from State Bank of India Lehrara was got sanctioned by Shri Krishan. One of the group was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- and other group Rs. 1,70,000/- out of that money. Shri Krishan took Rs. 1,40,000/- as surety. He told us that if a loan has not been paid then he will have to pay loan out of this money. After that whenever the instalment of loan was due, he used to take that on the pretext that he will deposit the same in the bank. He neither paid loan nor deposited instalment. We took him before the Bank Manager where he admitted that the money was due from him. The same money was not returned by him. The bank officials time and again are harassing us in spite of the fact that we have paid our instalments. From the bank our case was sent to ADC. Whenever, a letter is received from the Addl. Deputy Commissioner office for enquiry our family members feel ashamed for it. Nothing has come out from the enquiry. Mr. Dhankhar flatly refused to pay the money. It is therefore, requested that our instalments be got deposited and justice be done to us. We poor laides cannot again deposit the amount of loan nor we can pay the fare of travelling to attend the enquiry nor we can left our livelihood. In this case we have spent much fare in travelling. Therefore, it is requested that our money be got returned. We never knew that new Chetna Gram Udyog Mandal was being run by his wife. He himself is doing all the work of this Mandal. It is therefore, prayed that justice be done to us. In the ADC office his wife could not write her own statement. If any institution failed to do any social welfare and service, and failed to watch the interest of its members then such type of institution should be taught a lesson by the Government. Because of the non-payment of the aforesaid loan we have suffered great humiliation in our village. It is therefore, prayed that our problem be solved as early as possible.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no concern with the Nav Chetna Udyog Mandal and Bhawana Self Help Group. The matter had been investigated by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat and complaint was found to be false. The incident related to the year 2002, whereas, FIR has been registered in the year 2007.

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 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 offenc 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.

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 allegation against the petitioner is that he had kept an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of loan amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner used to take the instalments of loan but the same were never deposited by him with the bank. Now after investigation of the case, challan has been presented in the Court.

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

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.