Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2600 (PNJ)

Sukhdeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

2010-09-09

SABINA

body2010
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No. 84 dated 6.6.2003 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station City Kapurthala (Annexure P1) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P1) read as under:- “It is submitted that I, Ajit Singh s/o Dial Singh, am a resident of 178 Model Town Kapurthala. That I was on visiting terms with Gurdip Singh s/o Bishan Singh, resident of Sudan wali gali, Machhi Chak, Kapurthala. Aforesaid Gurdip Singh, Sukhdeep Kaur w/o Gurdip Singh, Jasvir Singh and Amanpreet Singh Walia sons of Gurdip Singh had taken amounts for financial assistance in the forms of cheques from me for domestic ad business purposes. They had taken the cheques of these amounts in the presence of each other and had assured that as and when I would demand the amount, they would pay the same. I kept on asking for the amount from them but they used to put me of on one pretext or the other. That on 15.11.2002, Gurdip Singh issued cheque No. 169661 for Rs. 25,000/-, Cheque no. 169685 for Rs.2,00,000/- and cheque No. 169692 for Rs. 2,00,000/-on 15.12.2002. I presented those cheques in my Account No.26 with Central Cooperative Bank, Kapurthala for encashing the same but these cheques could not be encashed because the State Bank of Patiala, Kapurthala vide its memo intimated that there were not sufficient funds in the account of Gurdip Singh. As such, despite having the knowledge that there were not sufficient funds in his account he issued those cheques to me with a bad intention. They have committed a fraud with me in connivance with one another. Gurdip Singh has gone at some undisclosed destination but his family members are aware about it. Above said Jasbir Singh, Amanpreet Singh and their mother Sukhdeep Kaur are present here. When I asked about my money from them, they kept on making excuses and now have started issuing threats of life to me saying that they would not return any amount; and that I should take any action. In these circumstances, I apprehend danger to my life because they always remain ready to pick up quarrels. When I asked about my money from them, they kept on making excuses and now have started issuing threats of life to me saying that they would not return any amount; and that I should take any action. In these circumstances, I apprehend danger to my life because they always remain ready to pick up quarrels. It is, therefore, requested that legal action may be taken against them. My amount may be got returned to me and my rights may be protected.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') against Gurdip Singh qua cheque No.169685 dated 15.11.2002 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-and cheque No.169691 for Rs.25000/-. Since Gurdip Singh was not traceable, the complainant has falsely involved the present petitioners by lodging the FIR in dispute as the petitioners are the wife and sons of Gurdip Singh. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on G.Sagar Suri v.State of U.P. 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 707(SC) and Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 960. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. On the last date, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that respondent No.2 had since died. It has been held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.” A bare reading of the FIR reveals that no case under Section 420/406/34 IPC is made out. The loan in question has been taken by Gurdip Singh and Gurdip Singh issued cheque Nos. 169661 for Rs.25,000/-, 169685 for Rs.2,00,000/-and 169692 for Rs.2,00,000/-on 15.12.2002. The loan in question has been taken by Gurdip Singh and Gurdip Singh issued cheque Nos. 169661 for Rs.25,000/-, 169685 for Rs.2,00,000/-and 169692 for Rs.2,00,000/-on 15.12.2002. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, the same were returned back with the report that “not sufficient funds”. It appears that since Gurdip Singh is not traceable, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR qua the present petitioners with the hope that he might get back his money. However, the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Act is pending. The cheques in question had been issued by Gurdip Singh and, hence, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner also had an intention to cheat or commit criminal breach of trust. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the FIR in question would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 84 dated 6.6.2003 registered under Sections 406,420 and 34 IPC at Police Station City Kapurthala (Anneuxre P1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.