Criminal Misc. No.M-27545 of 2010 (O&M) v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Present: Mr.Sarwan Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 43 dated

17.7.2010 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 461 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mehtiana District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “It is submitted that I had applied for students visa for going to UK in the month of January 2010 and had applied for visa, regarding which I was in need of showing bank balance, as I could not show more money from Criminal Misc. No.M-27545 of 2010 (O&M) 2 myself. Some persons known to me told that one Arun Kumar @ Billa, resident of Rahimpur, is charging commission for showing bank balance. I contacted Arun Kumar and asked him to issue bank statement for Rs.10.00 lacs, who told me that he would charge Rs.50,000/- from me and would issue the correct bank statement, which would be even as such, even if enquiry is held. Thereafter, I withdrew Rs.50,000/- from the bank account of my mother Harbhajan Kaur and gave it to Arun Kumar on 10th of January, 2010. Arun Kumar got the account statement prepare from Canara Bank, Kot Fatuhi, from bank Account No.3325 and assured me that it is perfectly genuine, on the basis of which I applied for visa for going to UK. The UK Embassy rejected my application for grant of student visa on account of the bank statement being forged. Then I asked Arun Kumar that bank statement has been found to be false and I asked for the refund of the money, who was avoiding the payment. The aforesaid Arun Kumar has received the money from me and got the false bank statement prepared and has cheated me and spoiled my future. Now, I have learnt that Arun Kumar, with the help of other persons, namely, Jasbir Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of C-233, Nawanshahr, whose immigration is at Criminal Misc. No.M-27545 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Garhshankar, Satish Kumar son of Tilak Raj, resident of Road Majra and the Manager, Canara Bank, Kot Fatuhi, who are dealing in preparing false bank statements and cheating other people. They may be proceeded against legally.” Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are vague allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. In the case of 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-27545 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 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. Criminal Misc. No.M-27545 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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 perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant learnt that Arun Kumar @ Billa with the help of the petitioner and others were dealing in preparing false statements and cheating other Criminal Misc. No.M-27545 of 2010 (O&M) 6 people. Since there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, it would not be just and expedient or in the interest of justice to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. September 20, 2010 (SABINA) JUDGE