Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2065 (BOM)

Satyanarayan v. State of Maharashtra

2019-09-05

AVINASH G.GHAROTE, PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2019
JUDGMENT : Avinash G.Gharote, J. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at the admission stage. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks to quash the F.I.R. No. 148 of 2015 registered with Police Station, Bhokardan Dist. Jalna for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 420,467,468,471,323,504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, so also, by an amendment effected later on, to quash the consequent chargesheet No. 177/2017 and Reg. Cri. Case No. 200/2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Bhokardan Dist. Jalna, which was filed during the pendency of the present petition. 2. The case of the applicant in nutshell is that the applicant is a senior citizen, against whom respondent No. 2, who is running a fair price shop in the same village and who was inimical towards the applicant, had initiated proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code i.e. Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 415/2015 on 06/10/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate F.C, Bhokardan, consequent to which, the criminal law was set in motion and the First Information Report No. 148 of 2015 came to be registered on 09/10/2015 against the applicant as well as (1) Gambhirrao Vyankatrao Jadhav (2) Mangesh Gambhirrao Jadhav, (3) Umesh Gambhirrao Jadhav and, (4) Ravindra Murlidhar Jadhav for the above offences. 3. It is contended that the applicant initially being the Karta of the family, had applied for issuance of ration card, which was issued by the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, which subsequently came to be renewed in the name of his son, Vijayprakash Lohiya, sometime in 2002, whose number is SQ 617763, in which also the name of the applicant finds mention as a member of the family. It is contended that the ration card was duly issued by the Tahsildar, after following all formalities and, it is only at the instance of respondent No.2 the F.I.R. No. 148 of 2015 has been registered against the applicant and other persons on the allegations that on the basis of false and forged documents, the ration card was obtained. It is further contended that it is falsely alleged that on 04/05/2014 the accused persons in F.I.R. No. 148/2015 alongwith the applicant had been to the shop of respondent No.2 and had abused, assaulted and threatened him. It is further contended that it is falsely alleged that on 04/05/2014 the accused persons in F.I.R. No. 148/2015 alongwith the applicant had been to the shop of respondent No.2 and had abused, assaulted and threatened him. It is further contended that the recitals in the F.I.R. are absolutely vague, unsubstantiated and do not disclose the commission of an offence. 4. It is further contended that during the pendency of the present petition, the chargesheet came to be filed on 19/08/2017 as a result of which, the petition has been amended and the challenge has been raised to the chargesheet also. It is further submitted that even a perusal of the chargesheet would demonstrate that no case whatsoever has been made out. It is, thus, prayed that the application be allowed by granting prayers as made therein. 5. The State has filed its affidavit-in-reply through Mr. Vikas Bhagwan Kokate, P.S.I. (P.S. Bhokardhan), on 20/07/2017, in which he has stated that the Tahsildar, Bhokardan by his communication dated 08/05/2017 had informed that as per orders and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a special drive was initiated for identifying bogus and forged ration cards and accordingly by an order dated 07/01/2013, the ration card of the applicant was cancelled as their names appeared in the list of bogus and forged ration cards. The communication dated 08/05/2017 of the Tahsildar was annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. Certain other averments were also made, which we would be adverting to later-on. The learned A.G.P. Mrs. Deshpande appearing for respondent No.1/State has argued that from the material on record, a prima-facie case is made out and there is no reason or cause pointed out by the applicant for quashing the F.I.R. She further argues that the chargesheet has also since been filed and as such, the present petition is not maintainable and the applicant ought to be directed to face trial. 6. Respondent No.2 has also filed his affidavit in reply on 19/03/2017 and has opposed the application for quashing. He further stated that the Tahsildar, Bhokardan had given directions to the Naib Tahsildar to register criminal complaint with police station which the Police Authorities failed to do. It is further stated that he himself had approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5528/2013 seeking a relief for lodging criminal prosecution against the guilty persons. He further stated that the Tahsildar, Bhokardan had given directions to the Naib Tahsildar to register criminal complaint with police station which the Police Authorities failed to do. It is further stated that he himself had approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5528/2013 seeking a relief for lodging criminal prosecution against the guilty persons. It is further averred that by an order dated 19/09/2013 the High Court has disposed of Writ Petition No. 5528/2013 with liberty to him to take such steps as were open to him. He further produced on record an order dated 07/01/2013 passed by the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, in respect of the cancellation of the ration cards of persons named therein which included the son of the applicant. He further submitted that a challenge to the order dated 07/01/2013 at the behest of one Shri Umesh Gambhirrao Jadhav vide writ petition No. 8318/2015 had failed as the said writ petition was withdrawn. He further prayed for rejection of the application. 7. Mr. Waramaa, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that applicant Satyanrayan S. Lohiya has filed a rejoinder affidavit on 30/07/2017, whereby he has stated that the ration card in the name of his son, Vijay Satyanarayan Lohiya, was cancelled . The cancellation of the ration card which was in the name of his son Vjay, was not for the reason that it was bogus, but was as a result of a scrutiny made as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also invited our attention to a letter of the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, addressed to the District Food Distribution Officer, in which it has been stated that the ration cards of the persons named therein, have been cancelled in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit by the applicant that initially the ration card was in his name and the same was surrendered for renewal and reissued in the name of his son Vijay Lohiya, which position has not been verified by either the Tahsildar or the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that no scrutiny of any kind whatsoever has been made by the Tahsildar or the I.O. in the matter, as the registers available with the Food Supply Department would attest to the issuance of the ration card in a legal and proper manner. He has further stated that no scrutiny of any kind whatsoever has been made by the Tahsildar or the I.O. in the matter, as the registers available with the Food Supply Department would attest to the issuance of the ration card in a legal and proper manner. He, therefore, submitted that the replies filed are without merits and the application needs to be allowed. 8. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the respective parties are in consonance with the written position as enumerated in the application, replies and rejoinder. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter at hand. We find that in the instant case the prosecution has been initiated at the behest of respondent No.2, who has run from pillar to post for getting the F.I.R. registered by filing Writ Petition No. 5528/2013, Writ Petition No. 8318/2015, and Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 415/2015 on 06/10/2015 before the Judicial Magistrate F.C, Bhokardan, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the F.I.R. demonstrates that the genesis for the same stems from the angst of respondent No.2 against the accused persons named therein, in what he claims of filing false complaints against the fair price shop being run by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in his complaint admits that the action in respect of cancellation of ration card was initiated in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in petition No. 191/2001, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India. The complainant further states that in-spite of having made several complaints against accused persons including the applicant with P.S. Bhokardan and the Supdt. Of Police, Jalna, however, since no action was taken, he was constrained to pursue the matter and get the F.I.R. registered. 10. A perusal of the communication dated 07/01/2013 bearing outward No. 2013/supply/admin/KV-17 addressed by the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, to the District Supply Officer, Jalna, asserts that the ration card in the name of the son of the applicant came to be cancelled in pursuance to the directions as contained in the judgment Peoples Union for Civil Liberties Vs. UOI (supra). 10. A perusal of the communication dated 07/01/2013 bearing outward No. 2013/supply/admin/KV-17 addressed by the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, to the District Supply Officer, Jalna, asserts that the ration card in the name of the son of the applicant came to be cancelled in pursuance to the directions as contained in the judgment Peoples Union for Civil Liberties Vs. UOI (supra). The order dated 07/01/2013 passed by the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, in the matter of cancellation of ration cards of six persons, which includes the son of the applicant, being material, is reproduced as under: xxx xxx This position is further supported by the letter of the Tahsildar also dated 07/01/2013, addressed to the District Supply Officer, Jalna, filed by the applicant alongwith his rejoinder affidavit dated 30/07/2017 which letter states that in pursuance to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the ration card of the son of the applicant came to be cancelled. The above order categorically demonstrates that the cancellation of the ration cards was on account of the annual income, having been found to be exceeding the permissible limit. It was, thus, necessary for the I.O. to seize the documents on the basis of which the ration card was issued, to examine them as to the veracity of the accusation. It was further necessary for the I.O. to seize the original ration card bearing No. SQ 617763. The record however, spells out that no efforts whatsoever were made by the I.O. to seize the original ration card bearing No. SQ 617763 . We say so for the reason that in the affidavit in reply filed by the State through the I.O. Shri Vikas Bhagwan Kokate dated 20/07/2017, the following statement finds place in paragraph No.4: "4. I respectfully submit that, the advocate of the petitioners has handed-over the ration card No. 617763 to Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and accordingly Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has handedover the said ration card to the deponent. Accordingly, communication was issued to the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, asking him information about the genuineness of the ration card. I respectfully submit that, the advocate of the petitioners has handed-over the ration card No. 617763 to Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and accordingly Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has handedover the said ration card to the deponent. Accordingly, communication was issued to the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, asking him information about the genuineness of the ration card. The Tahsildar, Bhokardan, by its communication dated 8.5.2017 has informed to the Police Inspector, Police Station, Bhokardan, wherein he has stated that, as per the orders and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a special drive was initiated for identifying bogus and forged ration cards and accordingly by an order dated 7.1.2013, the ration card of the petitioners were canceled as their names are appeared in the list of the bogus and forged ration card holders. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R-1 is the true and correct copy of the communication dated 8.5.2017 of the Tahsildar, Bhokardan, and the list dated 7.1.2013 wherein the names of petitioners are appearing." (Emphasis supplied) 11. This is a very surprising position inasmuch as during the course of investigation, considering that offences under sections 467,468,471 of I.P.C. have been alleged, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to seize the ration card bearing No. S.Q. 617763, however, the above statement demonstrates that no such attempt was ever made and the ration card continued to be in possession of the applicant, whose Counsel had handed-over the same to the learned A. G.P., who in turn is said to have handed-over the same to the Investigating Officer. On a query being made as to whether there was a seizure panchnama in respect of this ration card, the learned A.G.P. candidly admitted that no such seizure panchnama was found on record. On a further query, being made to the dismay of this Court, the learned Counsel for the applicant produced the original ration card No. SQ 617763 from his record. On inquiring as to how it came into his possession, he stated that the same was handed-over to him by the learned A.G.P., who in turn had received the same from the Investigating Officer. It is rather surprising to note that the ration card in respect of which the allegations of offences being committed under sections 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. have been made, even today, continues to be in the possession of the applicant. It is rather surprising to note that the ration card in respect of which the allegations of offences being committed under sections 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C. have been made, even today, continues to be in the possession of the applicant. To our mind, it was the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to have seized the same, failure to do which, vitiates the entire prosecution. 12. Sections 463,467,468 and 471 of I.P.C. read as under : "463. Forgery: Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." "467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." "468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 471. Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record." (Emphasis supplied) The language of sections 467,468 & 471 of I.P.C. postulates that the essence of these offences, lies in the "making of a false document", which is defined in Section 464 of I.P.C., which reads as under: "464. Making a false document. Making a false document. - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record - First; - Who dishonestly or fraudulently - (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot , or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration." (Emphasis supplied) In short, a person is said to have made a "false document" if (i) he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else, or (ii) he altered or tampered a document, or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his senses. The use of the words dishonestly or fraudulently as defined in Section 24 and 25 of the I.P.C., necessarily postulates a mensrea, or dishonest intention on the part of the person, said to have engaged in the activity of creating or making a false document. 13. The use of the words dishonestly or fraudulently as defined in Section 24 and 25 of the I.P.C., necessarily postulates a mensrea, or dishonest intention on the part of the person, said to have engaged in the activity of creating or making a false document. 13. In juxtaposition to the language of section 464 of I.P.C., in the instant matter, it is not the case of the prosecution that the ration card issued, which now stands in the name of the son of the applicant, bearing No. SQ 617763, has never been issued by the department and has been created or brought into being or made by the applicant or his son, either by signing, sealing, executing or otherwise creating it as contemplated by the language of Section 464 of I.P.C.. As such, when the act alleged does not satisfy the test of the language of Sec.464 of I.P.C., which is the very gravamen for alleging the offences under Sections 467,468 & 471 of I.P.C., then in our opinion, the prosecution cannot go on, in the light of the settled position of law that "Forgery" depends upon creation of a false document and if there is no false document, as defined in Section 464 of I.P.C., offences U/S. 467,468 & 471 are not made out. Reliance may be placed on the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Ram Narayan Popli Vs. CBI,2003 3 SCC 461. 14. As pointed out, the order dated 07/01/2013 does not dispute that the ration card bearing No. SQ 617763 was issued by the authorities. The allegation in this regard, as culled out from the complaint of respondent No.2, was that the same was obtained by supplying incorrect information. In this regard, it is material to note that the matter of issuance of a ration card comes under the aegis of the Ministry of Consumer affairs, Food and Distribution, under the Targeted Public Distribution System. The Government vide GSR No. 630(E) dated 31/08/2001 published in the Govt. Gazette of the State of Maharashtra on 19/09/2001, issued the "the Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2001 in exercise of the powers conferred U/S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, which also deals with the issuance of ration cards. The Government vide GSR No. 630(E) dated 31/08/2001 published in the Govt. Gazette of the State of Maharashtra on 19/09/2001, issued the "the Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2001 in exercise of the powers conferred U/S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, which also deals with the issuance of ration cards. Under clause 4 of the Annexure to the PDS (Control) Order, 2001, the designated authority has the power to issue a ration card within one month of the date of the receipt of the application after necessary checks and verification. Under clause 7 of the Annexure, a ration card is valid for a specified period and shall be issued afresh or renewed after fresh verification of antecedents and such other checks as may be prescribed by the State Government in this regard. It is, thus, axiomatic to state that the issuance, re-issuance or renewal of a ration card is only after necessary checks and verification by the designated authority appointed in this regard. This necessarily mandates written record, both as to the application for issuance and the checks and verification as conducted, prior to issuance of the ration card. 15. Thus, in the light of the nature of the offences alleged, and the above position, a further query was made as to what other documents were seized to support the allegation regarding commission of the offences. It is stated by the learned A.G.P. at the bar that no other documents have been seized by the I.O., as is reflected from the chargesheet. In order to bring home charge under sections 420,467,468,471 of I.P.C. what is least required, is the collection of the documents and information, which in this case, would be the application made for obtaining the ration card, the verification of the information as given therein, comparison of the same with the permissible norms, establishing the position that this information was incorrect, seizure of the ration card itself and the determination of the quantum or extent of benefit derived, none of which has been done, as it reflected from the record. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samir Sahay Vs. State of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC 233 in paragraph No. 21, by relying upon its earlier judgment in S.W. Palanitkar Vs. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samir Sahay Vs. State of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC 233 in paragraph No. 21, by relying upon its earlier judgment in S.W. Palanitkar Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 has summarized the ingredients of the offence of cheating U/S. 420 to be as under: "The ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by, (ii)(b) the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property." Considering the above position of law and applying it to the facts of the present case, we find that there is absolutely no material/allegation in either the F.I.R./complaint or for that matter the subsequently filed chargesheet to satisfy the above parameters and, as such, in so far as the offences U/S. 420 of I.P.C. is concerned, that too, cannot be sustained. This is more so, as in the instant case, there is no seizure whatsoever of any document, much less the record with the Tahsildar containing the application and the information supplied for the issuance of the ration card. 17. In so far as the offence U/S. 323 of I.P.C. is concerned, there is no medical report in this regard. In so far as the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C. are concerned, a plain reading of the F.I.R./complaint demonstrates that vague and unsubstantiated allegations are made, which are unsupported by the statements, as recorded in pursuance to the registration of the F.I.R. 18. Thus, there is no material whatsoever in the F.I.R./complaint as well as the evidence collected to bring home the charges under Sections 420,467,468,471,323,504 & 506 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. against the applicant. Thus, there is no material whatsoever in the F.I.R./complaint as well as the evidence collected to bring home the charges under Sections 420,467,468,471,323,504 & 506 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. against the applicant. Needless to say that in the instant case, in addition to the F.I.R./complaint, we have had the additional benefit of perusing the chargesheet also, which has been filed in the intervening period and a copy of which has been placed on record. 19. The learned A.P.P. as well as the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 thereafter have argued that since the chargesheet has already been filed, the F.I.R. could not be quashed. The argument has only to be noted, to be rejected, as the position in this regard is no longer res-integra and the latest position of law in this regard is reflected from the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State Department of Home and Anr., AIR 2019 SC 210 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated as under: "15. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat. In the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra), this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the 482 petition, observed :- "16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not." 16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C. and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: - "482. or not." 16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C. and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: - "482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 20. The above position of law squarely covers the argument sought to be canvassed, which, thus, cannot be sustained. 21. The parameters for exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. The above position of law squarely covers the argument sought to be canvassed, which, thus, cannot be sustained. 21. The parameters for exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and othrs, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, in the following words: "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 CrPC 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 channelized 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 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 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 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 non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a 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. (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 continuation 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." The above position is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Datta and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 15 SCC 429 in para 19. The present case clearly falls into category (1) and (3) as enumerated in Bhajanlal's case (supra). 22. Thus, considering the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the exercise of the powers U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. as stated above and applying them to the facts of the present case and in view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint as well as the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out any case against the applicant. In this view of the matter, in the facts of the present case, F.I.R. No. 148/2015 is hereby quashed, as a consequence of which, the chargesheet dated 19/08/2017 and the resultant prosecution cannot continue. Criminal Application No. 264 of 2017 is accordingly allowed in above terms.