Shyju Mathew vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 98 dated 25.8.2009, under Sections 379 and 407, 408, 120B (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Nangal District Rupnagar.

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

I) Quantity of Furnace Oil as per Invoice No. 627319549 dated 28.08.2008 (copy enclosed) (G.R. No. 279 dated 26.08.2008 of M/s. R.K. Roadlines (Regd.) New Delhi = 15 M.T. (16 KL). II) Actual quantity of Furnace Oil received aftger down loading the material on 24.04.2009 = 6035 litres. From the above, it is clear that the party have delivered only 6035 KL of Furnace Oil at our end against the actual quantity of 16 KL, thus stealing the remaining 9965 KL (approx.) of material during transportation by adulterating the same with water. This amounts to theft of our material i.e. Furnace Oil by the said transporter and his Driver/Agent deliberately, causing heavy loss to this Company. The above details are submitted for your kind information, record and with a request to register FIR against M/s. R.K. Roadlines (Regd.) New Delhi and its Driver/Agent for pilferage/theft of our material through adulteration with water during transportation of the same. Thanking you, for Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. Sd/-Dr. C.S. Garg, Chief Tech. Advisor.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in fact, the dispute between the parties was civil in nature. Civil suit was already pending at Nangal and hence, criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the tanker of the Petitioner was kept by the complainant for eight months and had not been returned to the Petitioner.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present 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, Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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.

(8) 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.

The allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the FIR are that the Petitioner had committed theft of furnace oil and had adulterated the material by adding water. During investigation, it transpired that water had been mixed in the contents lying in the tanker to a huge extent. A penalty of Rs. 11,22,152/- was imposed on the Petitioner but the same was not deposited.

Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the Petitioner, it would not be just and expedient or in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings at the very threshold.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.