Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 43 (PNJ)

Ravinder Nath Bagga v. State of Haryana

2007-01-12

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:- By filing the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”), the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 292 dated 13.7.2004 registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. A complaint dated 27.4.2004 was initially filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, on the basis of which FIR No. 292 dated 13.7.2004 came to be registered. It was alleged therein that Ravinder Nath Bagga, Rekha Rani and Shanti Devi, the three accused, came to the house of complainant Boota Ram in the first week of January 1999. Ravinder Nath Bagga told him that he deal in sending people abroad and could send any person to America for doing work over there. He also proposed to send son of the complainant to America in case the latter could arrange Rs. 7.5 lacs. Remaining two accused also supported the version of Ravinder Nath Bagga. Ravinder Nath Bagga asserted that if they failed to send complainant’s son to America, they would return the amount along with interest @ 2% per month. Believing the version of the accused, Boota Ram complainant contacted his friends Darshan Singh and Rattan Lal and narrated to them about what had been told to him and they also agreed to send their sons to America. Boota Ram then contacted accused Ravinder Nath Bagga on telephone, who asked him to arrange Rs. 7.5 lacs for each person for being sent to America. Later on, the three accused met complainant Boota Ram and others at Kurukshetra, where a total sum of Rs. Six lacs was paid to them, besides the passports of the sons of the three complainant. Assurance was given by accused Ravinder Nath Bagga that visas for going to America would be arranged and the complainants should be ready with the remaining amount to be paid after the same was done. Afterwards, accused Ravinder Nath Bagga contacted the three complainants on telephone and told them that visas for America had been arranged and their sons should arrange money and reach Delhi Air Port. Accordingly, the sons of the three complainants reached Air Port, where they were made to board a flight, stating it to be for America, but it was for Moscow. Accordingly, the sons of the three complainants reached Air Port, where they were made to board a flight, stating it to be for America, but it was for Moscow. After reaching Moscow, they were made to board a flight for Cuba, but they were sent back from Moscow to India. In the meantime, Ravinder Nath Bagga alongwith his co-accused came to the house of the three complainants in village Kalsa and dishonestly made false statement that their sons had been sent to America and asked them to make the payment. Believing the version of the accused, the three complainants paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- each to them. Later on they learnt that they had been cheated. Their sons could not reach America, but returned from Moscow. Even thereafter, son of Darshan Singh complainant was sent to Cuba by the accused on the assurance that he would be sent to America from where some agent would meet him and that the other two boys would follow him after some period. However, when the son of Darshan Singh reached Cuba, he was arrested by the police and after 20/25 days, he was released and came back to India. Instead of returning the money already paid by the three complainants to the accused, they started threatening them. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR in question was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners never worked as travel agents. In fact, the three complainants started making allegations against the petitioners that they charged money from them for sending their sons to America. When the complainants did not stop harassing them, a Panchayat was convened, wherein a compromise was arrived at on 7.10.1999. At that time, the three complainants had clearly admitted that they had paid money to one Ikhlak Khan for sending their sons to America and the petitioners had no concern with the same. Inspite of the said compromise, the private respondents did not stop there and submitted an application, which was thoroughly enquired into and was thereafter filed by the police as no case was made out against the petitioners. The present FIR has been lodged by the three complainants only on account of the fact that petitioner Ravinder Nath Bagga was working as a Deed Writer at Ludhiana and was President of All India Batwal Baradari Association. The present FIR has been lodged by the three complainants only on account of the fact that petitioner Ravinder Nath Bagga was working as a Deed Writer at Ludhiana and was President of All India Batwal Baradari Association. He was related to Boota Ram complainant being his nephew. Said Boota Ram was also eyeing the post of President of the All India Batwal Baradari Association and opposing the petitioner and for that reason the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned State counsel submitted that after the registration of the FIR, sufficient material was collected during the investigation on the basis of which final report under Section 173 of the Code has been submitted against the petitioners in the Court. Further that the basic ingredients of offences were disclosed in the FIR, which were later on verified during the investigation of the case and found to be correct. 4. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it has been submitted that though petitioner Ravinder Nath Bagga is related to respondent Boota Ram and all of them belonged to the same community, yet it was denied that said Boota Ram was interested in becoming President of the Baradari Association. Against the petitioners and their co-accused, a number of similar FIRs stood registered for cheating various persons. It was, thus, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed before me. The FIR was registered on 13.7.2004. After the completion of the investigation, the police has collected sufficient material against the petitioners and their co-accused. On the basis of the same, final report under Section 173 of the Code has been submitted in the Court. At this stage, it cannot be said that the complainants levelled false or frivolous allegations against the petitioners and another. All these things can be appreciated by the trial Court at the appropriate stage when parties would be required to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas. The disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of the code. 6. Power of quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan & Ors. The disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of the code. 6. Power of quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 655, it was clearly held that the High Court could not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint were likely to be established by evidence or not as that is in the domain of the trial Magistrate when evidence would come before him. It was observed as under:- “It is trite that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not.” 7. The principle of exercising the power of quashing of a criminal proceedings very sparingly and with circumspection was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. The principle of exercising the power of quashing of a criminal proceedings very sparingly and with circumspection was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383, wherein it was observed as follows : “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.” Following the above mentioned principles, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Mohan Rao & Anr. Vs. M. Kishan Rao & Anr, 2002(3) RCR (Crl.) 561, that the questions of disputed nature which require enquiry into facts could not be considered at the preliminary stage for the purposes of quashing the complaint and the proceedings on its basis. In view of the above, no case for quashing of the FIR is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take all the pleas available to them at the appropriate stage. ——————————