Subhash Chander 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 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 34 dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ''IPC'') registered at Police Station Bahavwala, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this petition has been rendered infructuous qua petitioner No. 2 as he has died during the pendency of the petition. Petition qua petitioner No. 2 stands disposed of accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of petitioner No. 1 has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed. A perusal of the FIR itself reveals that no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. The dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature as it was money dispute. Complainant could have filed a civil suit for recovery, as per law. The FIR in question had been lodged after a long delay.

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 further submitted that the said respondent could not file suit for recovery, as there was no receipt available with the complainant, qua advancement of loan to the petitioners.

A perusal of the FIR reveals that the case of the complainant-respondent No. 2 is that on 24th December, 2001 petitioners had visited his house and had requested for loan to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Complainant trusted Ved Prakash-petitioner No. 2 and advanced Rs. 1,05,000/- as loan to petitioner No. 1-Subhash Chander in the presence of his brother Hans Raj and Krishan Lal, Member Panchayat. Complainant further told the petitioner that he would hand over Rs. 95,000/- to petitioner No. 2 in his shop. Petitioner No. 1 executed a receipt to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/- on his letter pad and handed over the same to the complainant. Complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 95,000/- on the next day to Ved Prakash, petitioner No. 2 in the presence of his brother Hans Raj and Krishan Lal, Member Panchayat. Petitioner No. 2-Ved Prakash had also assured that he would issue him a receipt in this regard.

Thus, a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the dispute between the parties was with regard to advancement of loan. As per the complainant, the loan amount advanced by him to the petitioners had not been returned by them. The loan was allegedly advanced by the complainant to the petitioners in December, 2001. However, the FIR was registered on 14th May, 2010 with regard to the said occurrence. Since the dispute between the parties was purely a money dispute, complainant could have filed a suit for recovery. As per the FIR, petitioner No. 1 had issued a receipt in favour of the complainant with regard to advancement of loan to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/-. However, no recovery suit was filed by the complainant basing his claim on the said receipt. It appears that as the suit for recovery had not been filed by the complainant within the period of limitation, he lodged the FIR in question to secure his civil right.

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.

Since the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 1 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 34 dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) u/s 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bahavwala, District Ferozepur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner No. 1 are quashed.