Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4 (PNJ)

Ramesh Narang v. State of U. T. , Chandigarh

2012-01-02

MAHESH GROVER

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - In the instant petition, the petitioner prays that FIR no. 341 registered under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed. 2. According to the allegations set out in the FIR on the version given by the complainant it appears that the complainant has purchased a mobile set which was defective and the petitioner was approached to rectify the defect. It is alleged that the petitioner replaced the original speakers of the handset by some other speakers and the defect was not rectified. This resulted in numerous visits by the complainant to the petitioner resulting in his harassment and finally he was constrained to go to the District Consumer Forum for his grievance in which the complainant was awarded an amount equivalent to the price of the handset. An FIR has been lodged to say that the petitioner has cheated the complainant and has also replaced the speakers of the handset unauthorisedly deriving undue advantage for himself and resulting in loss to the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations even if taken to be correct do not constitute any offence and that the respondent who has purchased the hand set and which developed some defect during the warranty period was duly repaired by the authorized centre of the manufacturing Company. He further states that it is in this background that when the complainant approached the District Consumer Forum he was awarded a sum of Rs.8815/- which is equivalent to the price of the handset and the petitioner in these circumstances cannot be attributed any act of omission or commission inviting criminality. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand has justified registration of FIR and has opposed the prayer of quashing made by the petitioner. 5. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the transaction referred to in the FIR was merely a mercantile transaction and the facts even if taken to be correct do not invite any culpability so as to force the petitioner to undergo the rigors of trial. It is settled principle of law that setting in motion the criminal process is a serious matter and it should not be a result of whimsical endeavour and further still it should not be a result of magnified grievance. It is settled principle of law that setting in motion the criminal process is a serious matter and it should not be a result of whimsical endeavour and further still it should not be a result of magnified grievance. Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments including the celebrated judgment rendered in case titled as State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604(1) has laid down numerous eventualities in which the High Court can quash the FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These principles have been constantly reiterated in the subsequent judgments as well. Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of such cases titled as Sundar Babu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported as 2009(2) RCR (Crl.) 606 has observed as follows:- 6. Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid down therein are as follows: 1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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 Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.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 not 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 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. 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.” 7. Even a cursory glance at the allegations set out in the FIR show that allegations even if taken in their face value do not constitute any offence. Apparently the same are result of a disgruntled customer who is out to settle his scores with his vendor. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is accepted and as a consequence thereof, the FIR no. 341 registered under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh and all consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. --------------