Shiv Kumar Kakkar v. Parvindar Pal Singh and others), under Sections

applicant No.4 has lodged a first information report on 23.02.2023 against opposite party No. 2 and his family members. After that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party No.2 as a counterblast to the said cases. It was submitted that the complainant has not sustained any injury and that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the application and submitted that due to dispute over the sale of the property, the applicants have trespassed into his house and abused and threatened him and they have also tried to kill the complainant. Regarding that incident, the complainant has made complaints to several authorities but his report was not lodged. It was submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and material on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The broad guidelines laid down by the Apex court for quashing a criminal complaint read as under:- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 1 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 6 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. (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. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Apex Court elaborated on what evidence and material the High Court can get into in cases where a prayer for quashing a complaint has been made. The Court held:- ''Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

8. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, the Court observed that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, the Apex Court indicated some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged.

9. Thus, the legal position is well settled that where the allegations made in the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet / complaint may be quashed. Similarly, where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable or where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the complaint / proceedings may be quashed.

10. Coming the facts of the present case, it may be seen that it could not be disputed that the complainant has agreed to sell his residential property to applicant No.1 for Rs.52 lakhs and that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was transferred into the account of wife of complainant as part payment. It was alleged that said property was mortgaged to the bank and the complainant has failed to clear encumbrances over the property, due to which sale-deed could not be executed and it was agreed that the complainant would return the amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the applicant No.1. For that purpose, the wife of complainant has issued two cheques in favour of applicant No. 4, who is daughter-in-law of applicant No.1, but the said cheques were dishonoured. It was shown that on 23.02.2023, the applicant No. 4 has lodged a first information report against opposite party No.2 and his family members, alleging that on 18.02.2023 they have assaulted the applicants. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on

01.03.2023, which was registered as a complaint case. In the complaint merely a vague allegation has been made that on 18.02.2023 at about 10.00 PM the applicants trespassed into his house and misbehaved with opposite party No.2 and his family members and threatened him and that applicant No.1 has tried to attack the complainant with sword (kripaan). In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that applicants trespassed into his house and threatened him to sell his shop and did abusing and took out sword. There is no such specific allegation that any of the applicants has made any assault on the complainant or his family members or any injury was caused. It was also not clarified that what abusing was done by the applicants. The allegations made by complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are quite vague and no prima-facie case is made out. Even otherwise attending facts clearly show that the impugned complaint is the counterblast to the first information report lodged by the applicant No.4 against opposite party No.2 and his family members. It was also shown that in respect of two cheques issued by wife of opposite party No.2 in favour of applicant No.4 to return the alleged amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the applicant No.4 has filed two cases under Section 138 N.I. Act against the wife of complainant. In view of attending facts, it is apparent that impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with mala-fide and the same have been instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-applicants. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

11. In view of aforesaid, the entire impugned proceedings, including summoning order of aforesaid case are hereby quashed against applicants, namely, Parvindar Pal Singh, Randeep, Ratandeep & Smt. Nidhi.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 'SP'/- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

applicant No.4 has lodged a first information report on 23.02.2023 against opposite party No. 2 and his family members. After that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party No.2 as a counterblast to the said cases. It was submitted that the complainant has not sustained any injury and that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the application and submitted that due to dispute over the sale of the property, the applicants have trespassed into his house and abused and threatened him and they have also tried to kill the complainant. Regarding that incident, the complainant has made complaints to several authorities but his report was not lodged. It was submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and material on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The broad guidelines laid down by the Apex court for quashing a criminal complaint read as under:- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 1 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 6 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. (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. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Apex Court elaborated on what evidence and material the High Court can get into in cases where a prayer for quashing a complaint has been made. The Court held:- ''Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

8. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, the Court observed that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, the Apex Court indicated some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged.

9. Thus, the legal position is well settled that where the allegations made in the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet / complaint may be quashed. Similarly, where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable or where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the complaint / proceedings may be quashed.

10. Coming the facts of the present case, it may be seen that it could not be disputed that the complainant has agreed to sell his residential property to applicant No.1 for Rs.52 lakhs and that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was transferred into the account of wife of complainant as part payment. It was alleged that said property was mortgaged to the bank and the complainant has failed to clear encumbrances over the property, due to which sale-deed could not be executed and it was agreed that the complainant would return the amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the applicant No.1. For that purpose, the wife of complainant has issued two cheques in favour of applicant No. 4, who is daughter-in-law of applicant No.1, but the said cheques were dishonoured. It was shown that on 23.02.2023, the applicant No. 4 has lodged a first information report against opposite party No.2 and his family members, alleging that on 18.02.2023 they have assaulted the applicants. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on

01.03.2023, which was registered as a complaint case. In the complaint merely a vague allegation has been made that on 18.02.2023 at about 10.00 PM the applicants trespassed into his house and misbehaved with opposite party No.2 and his family members and threatened him and that applicant No.1 has tried to attack the complainant with sword (kripaan). In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that applicants trespassed into his house and threatened him to sell his shop and did abusing and took out sword. There is no such specific allegation that any of the applicants has made any assault on the complainant or his family members or any injury was caused. It was also not clarified that what abusing was done by the applicants. The allegations made by complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. are quite vague and no prima-facie case is made out. Even otherwise attending facts clearly show that the impugned complaint is the counterblast to the first information report lodged by the applicant No.4 against opposite party No.2 and his family members. It was also shown that in respect of two cheques issued by wife of opposite party No.2 in favour of applicant No.4 to return the alleged amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the applicant No.4 has filed two cases under Section 138 N.I. Act against the wife of complainant. In view of attending facts, it is apparent that impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with mala-fide and the same have been instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused-applicants. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

11. In view of aforesaid, the entire impugned proceedings, including summoning order of aforesaid case are hereby quashed against applicants, namely, Parvindar Pal Singh, Randeep, Ratandeep & Smt. Nidhi.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 'SP'/- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad