Rahul Nischal vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 487 dated 16.10.2008 under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'' for short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reads as under:

That applicant Kiranpreet Rai wife of Sh.Paramjit Singh Rai is a resident of 133, E-Bock Ranjit Avenue Amritsar and she is a peace loving law abiding citizen. 2. That the abovesaid Ashok Nischal and Rahul Nischal are father and sons and they are running shop in the name of Gopi Ornaments at 15 Patel Chowk, Amritsar. 3. That from the last one decade the applicant is preparing jewellery from the abovesaid accused Ashok Nischal and Rahul Nischal. Many times the abovesaid accused used to take jewellery from the house of the applicant from Ranjit Avenue Amritsar and used to returb back the same after converting it into the new design. As such the applicant is having full faith in them. 4. That in the month of January, 2008 the applicant was to prepare jewellery in the shape of the new design because of this she called the abovesaid accused at her residence Ranjit Avenue Amritsar and in the presence of her husband Paramjit Singh Bal she had given the jewellery of 173.360 gms to the abovesaid accused. On that day the abovesaid accused assured the applicant that as per the wish of the applicant they will prepare the jewellery in the shape of the new design and they will return the same after converting into the new shape after charging the labour charges within the few days. On being given assurance by the abovesaid accused, the applicant handed over the jewellery to them. 5. That on 5.1.2008 the abovesaid accused has returned the jewellery weighing 34.160 gms and the remaining jewellery was assured to be returned till 12.4.2008. In this regard the accused Ashok Nischal had given the receipt written by him. 6. That till today the remaining jewellery has not been returned by the accused. With the intention to grab the jewellery they did not return the same to the applicant. The abovesaid accused has misappropriated the jewellery. This is important to mention here that the abovesaid accused has shattered the decade old faith on the applicant and they had defrauded the applicant by grabing the jewellery. 7. That the applicant along with her husband went to take back the jewellery from the abovesaid accused but the accused on one pretext or the other kept on lingering the matter. Now the accused are giving the threats to us that they will not return the jewellery and whatever you want to do you can do and they are saying that if we went to demand the jewellery they can cause damage to us. 8. That the abovesaid accused with common intention and defrauded us. Therefore, it is requested to you that the FIR be registered against the abovesaid accused for the relevant sections.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal.

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/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.

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.

There are serious allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioner. Challan is yet to be presented. No ground for scuttling the criminal proceedings at this stage is made out.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.