G.S.Bali, Lt.Col. vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Present is a case which in the opinion of this Court would show that how respondent No. 2 Shri Babu Lal Jain, had tried to misuse the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he lodged F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 registered under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Central, Faridabad, by giving a colour as if he was lodging a different F.I.R. than the one which he had earlier lodged i.e., F.I.R. No. 122 of 1994 in Police Station Sadar Tonk (Rajasthan), under Sections 406/420/379/120B, Indian Penal Code.

Dr. (Lt.Col) G.S. Bali, Shri Harveen Singh Bali and Shri Sukhpreet Singh Sethi petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, have filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 registered under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Central, Faridabad, and the entire proceedings arising therefrom being an abuse of the process of law, and directions have also been sought against the respondents for release of leather skins belonging to M/s Exquisite Enterprises Private Limited, of which petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are the directors, and which skins have been illegally taken into possession by the police. It is alleged against the State of Haryana and Shri Babu Lal Jain, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, that earlier criminal case was got registered at Police Station Raju Tonk, District Tonk (Rajasthan), and the subjectmatter of the said F.I.R. is contained in Annexure P1, which was registered on the statement of Shri Babu Lal Jain, respondent No. 2. It may be stated here that as per Annexure P1, the date of incident was 31st October, 1994. While lodging the F.I.R., it was stated by Shri Babu Lal Jain, respondent No. 2, that M/s Tonk Tanneries is a registered Private Limited Company, of which he is the Chairman and Managing Director. In the Tonk Tanneries the work of raw leather (Raw Skins) and finishing work is done. On the base of raw leather (Wet Blue) is made and then finished leather is prepared in Exquisite Enterprises Limited, Sector 15, Faridabad (Haryana), Phone No. of which is 8285408, in which Dr. G.S. Bali and his son Shri Harvinder Singh Bali are the partners. Said Dr. G.S. Bali is working in Tonk Tenneries as Trade Specialist. Dr. Bali is working in Tonk Tanneries from time to time since 12.11.1992. Dr. Bali had purchased total 48,000 raw skins for Tonk Tanneries from 24.12.1992 to 17.12.1993, which were made wet blue in Tonk Tanneries. As there was not auto spray, finishing process machine in Tonk Tanneries for colouring and since the processing finishing machine in Tonk Tanneries was not working, Dr. Bali got finished the Wet Blue material of about 10,000 pieces with the company of his son Harvinder Singh Bali, known as Exquisite Enterprises, Faridabad and assured to return the pieces to Harsha Exporters, Jaipur, for preparing jackets, and shoes, leather to Tonk Tanneries. They have taken the abovesaid 48000 skins of their factory at Faridabad and Shri H.S. Bali himself had given in writing to Canara Bank on 21.1.1994 that they had with them about 1000 skins of M/s Tonk Tanneries. Thereafter Dr. Bali again gave in writing that he had with him 16,000 skins of Tonk Tanneries. M/s Tonk Tanneries had taken 96 lacs packing credit (PC) from Canara Bank, Jaipur and thereafter Dr. Bali and his son Sh. H.S. Bali, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, had assured to return 10,000 prepared pieces of leather immediately to the said Bank on inspection made by the two officers of the Bank in Exquisite Enterprises, Faridabad. However, Dr. Bali and his son had returned only 820 prepared pieces of M/s Harsha Exporters, Jaipur, and the rest of the leather pieces had not been returned to the account of M/s Tonk Tanneries, but the said pieces have been taken by Dr. Bali and his son for their personal use without the permission of M/s Tonk Tanneries. In this manner Dr. G.S. Bali had hatched a conspiracy with Col. J.V. Abraham (retired), who at that time was posted in M/s Tonk Tanneries and both of them without the permission of the Company, took away the chemicals and other records in order to make debit and credit entries with a dishonest intention. Dr. Bali had taken near about 21,000 wet blue skins from the factory at Faridabad. In fact, Dr. Bali had also taken away skins for job work which were not returned to M/s Tonk Tanneries; rather have been utilised by Dr. Bali. He had also purchased chemicals worth about Rs. 9,45,000/ from chemical companies, several times from 1.3.1993 to 1.2.1994 in the name of M/s Tonk Tanneries, but these chemicals were not brought to M/s Tonk Tanneries and with dishonest intention he had taken the same to Faridabad. In addition to this Dr. Bali has also taken spare parts of the machinery with the intention to grab from M/s Tonk Tanneries in conspiracy with Col. J.V. Abrahim, in order to cause loss to M/s Tonk Tanneries and both of them have misappropriated them for their personal use. The intention of Dr. Bali from the very inception was dishonest and in this manner he along with Col. J.V. Abrahim and his son Shri H.S. Bali has misappropriated the skins, machines and chemicals of about 65 lacs and committed breach of trust. Dr. G.S. Bali, Smt. Indira Bali, Shri Harvinder Singh Bali, Col. J.V. Abrahim and Shri S.P. Sethi are responsible and these people have brought the goods in conspiracy with each other at Faridabad, fraudulently. Shri Bablu Lal Jain also supplemented his complaint with some documents and on the above allegations F.I.R. No. 122 was registered in Police Station Sadar Tonk (Rajasthan) in the year 1994. Later on another F.I.R. was got registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 on 28th May, 1996, i.e., F.I.R. No. 457, and the allegations of this F.I.R. are necessary to be reproduced before I proceed further.

According to Shri Babu Lal Jain he is the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. at 3678, Jaipur. This Company is dealing in processing of raw skins to finished leather. During the period from 24.12.1992 to 31.3.1994 the Company processed 48,335 raw skins and leather chemicals for processing. These skins and chemicals were purchased to make supply against export order received by the Company from M/s Pepsi Food India Ltd. The Company availed packing credit of Rs. 75 lacs from Canara Bank against hypothecation of these skins and chemicals. One Mr. G.S. Bali son of late Mr. Sukhram Singh Bali of M/s Exmist Enterprises SB15A, Industrial Plot, Mathura Road, Faridabad, was appointed Additional Director in the Company and was incharge of production purchases. The skins of TTPL, referred to above, were also purchased by Mr. G.S. Bali through the suppliers known to him with whom he had connived to cheat the Company. It has also been stated by the complainant in the second F.I.R., which was registered at Faridabad, that the Company, i.e. M/s Tonk Tanneries also does job work for the customers. Skins are received from the customers for finishing. The skins purchased and received for job work are converted into wet blue stage at Tonk. Said Mr. G.S. Bali has a factory of his own at Faridabad, named as M/s Exquisite Enterprises. This factory is managed by him and his son Mr. Harveen Singh Bali and the Manager Mr. S.S. Sethi. Mr. G.S. Bali on the pretext of finishing the skins took the above skins also with chemical and equipment to his Faridabad Factory situated at S.B. 15A, Industrial Plot, Mahura Road, Faridabad, and total 53,605 wet blue skins have been taken by him to his Faridabad factory and he had even acknowledged this fact to the Bank. The value of the skins was about Rs. 65 lacs. Mr. G.S. Bali hatched a criminal conspiracy, started destroying the record of the Company regarding the transfer of skins to him, under a preplanned conspiracy and he wanted to cheat the Company by taking the skins and the chemicals of the Company. These goods are still lying with him. Mr. G.S. Bali has also stolen the books of accounts and signed cheque books, stock record and other records from the Company premises. One of his managers Mr. Sukhpreet Singh Sethi is hand in glove with him and it has come to the knowledge of the complainant that Mr. G.S. Bali had parted the possession of the materials and the records to Mr. Sethi, who is using and utilising the materials as per instructions of Mr. G.S. Bali and his son Mr. H.S. Bali. It has also been alleged for the second time that Mr. G.S. Bali is manipulating the book of accounts and the records of the firm, known as M/s Exquisite Enterprises in order to hide his misdeeds and in order to destroy his accounts; so much so, one Mr. R. Kapadia of M/s K.K. Rajde & Co. of Delhi, had colluded with Mr. Bali by supplying chemicals to him without the instructions of the owner and this firm is sending the bills of sold supplies to M/s Tonk Tenneries Private Limited. Some of the chemicals are lying at Faridabad, though sold To M/s Tonk Tanneries Private Limited and this alleged sale confirms the conspiracy aspect. Finally it was prayed by the complainant in the second F.I.R. that the skins, chemicals, cheque books, record books and other equipment be recovered from Sarvshri G.S. Bali, S.S. Sethi and H.S. Sethi.

The petitioners have sought the quashment of the second F.I.R. registered at Faridabad, on the plea that petitioner No. 1 is the Director of M/s Tonk Tannery Private Ltd. having 35% share, which is situated at Tonk in Rajasthan, having its registered office at Jaipur, and Shri Babu Lal Jain is its Chairman/Managing Director, having 65% share in the said firm. The Government of Rajasthan had permitted access of the Rajasthan State Tanneries Ltd. to M/s Tonk Tannery Pvt. Ltd. in September 1990. When Rajasthan State Tanneries was taken over by M/s Tonk Tannery Pvt. Ltd., the said tannery was running in heavy losses. It was because of continuous hard work and dedication of petitioner No. 1 that the production in the said tannery was able to commence some time in the year 1993. Once the production in the said unit started, there was a sea change in the attitude and behaviour of the complainant. When the petitioner came to know about such evil designs of the complainant, he filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Munsif at Jaipur, praying that the complainant along with M/s Tonk Tannery Private Limited be restrained from issuing any share of the company and also be restrained from transferring the shares of the company. The Court of Civil Munsif directed the petitioner to file application before the Company Law Board. As a counterblast, the complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain lodged F.I.R. No. 122 of 1994 in Police Station Sadar, Tonk (Rajasthan) against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Indira Bali who is the wife of petitioner No. 1. As per this F.I.R. the alleged offence is said to have been committed on 24th December, 1992, whereas the F.I.R. was registered on 31st October, 1994, i.e., after a lapse of about two years. Upon the registration of the F.I.R., petitioner No. 1 approached the Court of Session at New Delhi for grant of anticipatory bail, which was granted on 10th November, 1994. Petitioner No. 1 even went to Police Station Sadar, Tonk on 26th January, 1995 to complete the formalities. After getting the anticipatory bail from the Court of Session at New Delhi, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 approached the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, for grant of anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 122 of 1994, as per the directions of Court of Session at New Delhi. Both the petitioners were released on bail. In spite of the order of the Civil Court, not to issue any share till further orders, petitioner No. 1 came to know that the complainant is doing his best to reduce the share percentage of petitioner No. 1. Resultantly, petitioner No. 1 was constrained to move the Company Law Board at New Delhi, and the Company/Managing Director and one Mrs. Asha Bhatanagar were restrained from transferring or issuing fresh shares as well as dealing with the immovable properties of M/s Tonk Tannery Private Limited.

Further case of the petitioners is that petitioners No. 1 and 2 with the wife of petitioner No. 1 were doing their best to run the affairs of M/s Tonk Tannery Pvt. Ltd. in spite of cash crunch and limited funds available with them. Because of good offices of petitioner No. 1, who was the Director of Tonk Tannery Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad, some machinery was leased by M/s Exotique Apparel, which is being run by the wife of petitioner No. 1. Said machinery was leased by M/s Exotique Apparel vide lease deed dated 10th January, 1994 to M/s Tonk Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, wife of petitioner No. 1 approached the Civil Court with prayer to restrain the complainant from removing the machinery which was leased by M/s Exotique Apparel. When the petitioners refused to abide by the dictates of the complainantShri Babu Lal Jain, he lodged another F.I.R. on 28th May, 1996 in Police Station Central, Faridabad, and it was lodged against petitioner No. 1 and his son and the Manager of M/s Exquisite Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., i.e., petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. The main basis made by the petitioners for the quashment of F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad, is that with respect to the alleged occurrence an F.I.R. had already been registered at the instance of the complainant with Police Station Tonk (Rajasthan) and a person cannot be tried for the some offence twice. It has also been pleaded by the petitioners that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show that no offence under Section 406, I.P.C., has been made out against the petitioners. The entrustment is stated to be made out at Tonk in Rajasthan, for which another F.I.R. is pending and petitioner No. 1 has obtained anticipatory bail therein. Petitioner No. 1 is not a stranger to M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd., as he is its Director. The subjectmatter of the present F.I.R. is the same as that of the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Tonk (Rajasthan). The second F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 in order to harass the petitioners. The F.I.R. lodged in Police Station Central, Faridabad, in the year 1996 pertained to alleged occurrence of the petitioner of 1992 and that too in Rajasthan. The complainant has concealed this fact with respect to the registration of the F.I.R. in Rajasthan, while lodging the F.I.R. in Faridabad. He has misled the Police of Haryana by concealing the factum of existence of an F.I.R. at Tonk in Rajasthan which pertained to the same very alleged occurrence. Had this fact been brought to the notice of Haryana Police, it could not and would not have taken cognizance of the complainant made by the complainant as an F.I.R. was already in existence pertaining to the same complaint, i.e., F.I.R. No. 122 of 1994, and the veracity of the same was already under investigation by the Police of Rajasthan. The complainant wants to settle the business scores with the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1, who is a shareholder of 35% in M/s Tonk Tanneries in Rajasthan and also a Director of the said firm, who had in fact stood guarantor before the Canara Bank, i.e., the Bank of Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd., in his personal capacity. The guarantee was given in personal capacity by petitioner No. 1, in order to help M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd., to revive its business. However, now the complainant in order to usurp the unit of M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. and to ease out petitioner No. 1 from 35% share, has started making all sorts of wild allegations simply to pressurize Dr. G.S. Bali, petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 had brought some machinery to M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. from the company of his wife, i.e., M/s Exotique Apparel on lease and the complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain had tried to misappropriate the machinery leased by the wife of petitioner No. 1. The wife of petitioner No. 1 had approached the Court at Jaipur to obtain an order restraining the complainant from removing the said machinery from the premises of M/s Tonk Tanneries. In pursuance of F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail and it has been even observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the second F.I.R. was identical with the one lodged in Rajasthan and the time factor was the only difference between the two.

After the registration of the case the complainant moved an application for the release of the skins on superdari. Learned Magistrate, without going into the facts of the case, passed an order in favour of the complainant. The said order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by petitioner No. 1 in the Court of Session. The Court of Session accepted the revision petition and directed that the materials be released on superdari in favour of petitioner No. 1.

It has also been pleaded that the second F.I.R. is liable to be quashed as it contains only vague allegations regarding misappropriation. It does not mention any specific material which is alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioners. The second F.I.R. is an abuse of the process of law with the intention to harass the petitioners. Also it is alleged by the petitioners that the complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain is an influential person and he has managed to get the second F.I.R. registered against the petitioners. It has been submitted that on the same allegations an F.I.R. is pending at Police Station Tonk (Rajasthan), which fact was never disclosed to the Police at the time of lodging of F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 at Police Station Central, Faridabad.

In short the petitioners have sought the quashment of second F.I.R. registered at Faridabad, mainly on the ground that the subjectmatter of the second F.I.R. was the same and its registration was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and that petitioner No. 1 himself is a Director and shareholder of the Company to the extent of 35%; no offence of criminal misappropriation is made out and that the matter involved is of civil liability and the entire contest is between petitioner No. 1 and the complainant and the latter wanted to grab the property of M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd.

Notice of the petition was given to the State of Haryana, which was made a party at the first instance. Shri Badan Singh, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Central, Faridabad, filed an affidavit, and he has admitted in his affidavit that Shri Babu Lal Jain complainant had been dealing in processing of raw skins to finished leather, whereas petitioner No. 1 Shri G.S. Bali had been the Additional Director and looking after the purchase and production of M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. and he was the shareholder to the extent of 7%. The Company had purchased 48,359 raw skins and leather chemicals for processing inbetween the period 24.12.1992 to 31.3.1994. The skins and chemicals were purchased to make supply against the export order received by the Company from M/s Pepsi Food India Ltd. The Company availed packing credit of 75 lacs from Canara Bank against the hypothecation of these skins and chemials. The above skins after purchase and received for job work were converted into wet blue at the works of the company at Tonk. Shri G.S. Bali also has a factory of his own at Faridabad, named M/s Exquisite Enterprises. This factory is managed by Shri G.S. Bali and his son Shri Harveen Singh Bali and Manager Shri S.S. Sethi. The petitioner brought the above skins along with chemicals and equipments to Faridabad on the pretext of finishing the skins. Shri G.S. Bali brought to his factory total 53,605 skins from `wet blue'' stage at Faridabad and the cost of the skins and the chemicals was worth Rs. 65 lacs. In this manner Shri G.S. Bali hatched a conspiracy with petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and brought the skins to Faridabad. Case was registered at the instance of Shri Babu Lal Jain. The skins and the chemicals were recovered. Earlier the order was passed in favour of Shri Babu Lal Jain and the said order was interfered by the revisional court at Faridabad, vide order dated 20th August, 1996. One more revision petition was filed by Ms Red Cat Overseas before the High Court under Section 452, Cr.P.C., and this firm concealed this fact from the High Court that a revision against the order of the Magistrate was already pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The State of Haryana admits that a case was also registered at Tonk but it was on different facts as well as the matter was at initial stage and the investigation was yet to commence. It has been stated in para No. 2 of the affidavit by the State of Haryana that the case at Tonk was not yet investigated and the investigation of the case had since been closed. Therefore, the recovery of the skins was effected in case F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996. In para No. 4 of the written statement it has been pleaded by the State of Haryana that petitioner No. 1 had only 7% share in M/s Tonk Tanneries and the rest of the shares belonged to Shri Babu Lal Jain. It is the case of the State that petitioner No. 1 had conspired with his coaccused and had transported the skins from Tonk to Faridabad in the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises, Faridabad. From the documents which have been taken into possession by the Investigating Agency, it stands established that the skins were entrusted to Shri G.S. Bali, petitioner No. 1, who brought the skins and the chemicals to the factory of M/s Exquisite Enterprises at Faridabad. It has also been stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, could not interfere with the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as the order of the Magistrate was interlocutory in nature and that the revision was not competent.

As I mentioned above that Shri Babu Lal Jain was not impleaded as a party to the main petition. He filed a separate appliction, which has been allowed by the Court and he has been made a party to the petition and the written statment of Shri Babu Lal Jain has also been taken on record. It has been stated by him in the written statement that the challan in the Court of proper jurisdiction at Faridabad had already been filed in November 1996 and that Shri Harveen Singh is putting appearance there, therefore, the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is liable to be dismissed. It is the stand of Shri Babu Lal Jain that the contents of both the F.I.Rs. are different and there is no bar on the part of the Police of Police Station, Faridabad, to register and investigate the case. The case in dispute belonged to M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. and those very goods were found in the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises, Faridabad, and these goods have been transferred there by petitioner No. 1 in connivance with petitioner No. 2 in order to cause loss to the management of M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. The Police has rightly taken into possession the goods belonging to M/s Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. No trial visavis the allegations of the F.I.R. registered in tonk is pending and, therefore, the petitioners can be prosecuted with regard to F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996. Even the management of M/s Exquisite Enterprises, Faridabad, have admitted that the goods belonging to M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. are lying there as per letter dated 22nd February, 1994, written under the signature of Shri H.S. Bali and Shri G.S. Bali, petitioners. The petitioners have themselves admitted their fault and guilt. On merits, the stand of Shri Babu Lal Jain is that petitioner No. 1 is no more the Director of Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. He had share in the Company to the extent of 7%. The petitioners have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust with M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. The second F.I.R. is not the counterblast. The said F.I.R. has been registered against petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on correct facts and not to harass them. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are not connected with Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. in any way and they are not the employees of the said firm, but they are parties to the criminal breach of trust. Case under Section 406, I.P.C., has been made out. The investigating agency is collecting the material and has also filed a challan against the petitioners at Faridabad and that the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., should be dismissed. This respondent denies that M/s Exotique Apparel has leased out any machinery to M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. The second case has been rightly registered against the petitions. M/s Red Cat Overseas has also filed revision in the High Court against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, which was ultimately got dismissed as withdrawn. Shri Babu Lal Jain has finally prayed for the dismissal of the petition mainly by relying that the subjectmatter of F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996, recorded at Faridabad, was totally separate and different than the one which was the subjectmatter of F.I.R. No. 122 dated 31st October, 1994 registered at Police Sadar, Tonk.

I am disposing of this petition with the assistance rendered by Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri S.S. Pattar, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, and Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of Shri Babu Lal Jain, respondent No. 2.

A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the challan in this case had already been presented against the petitioners, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. According to the learned counsel, when the allegations of the second F.I.R. are under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court will be slow in interfering in the proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

So far as the proposition of law is concerned, it is not disputed nor it can be disputed but the wording of section 482, Cr.P.C., lays down that 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 the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. These are the powers which are independent from the provisions as contained in the Code itself. The scope of these powers was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 S.C. 604: 1991(1) RCR 383, and their Lordships were pleased to hold that the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. However, guidelines were given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in th said famous judgment, which I would like to reproduce :

" 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 into prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a congnizable 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.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.

Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.

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.

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.

Where allegation in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary poweors inherent powers, quashing of F.I.R. was not justified."

In guideline No. 7 it was laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that 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. I have already enumerated the material portions of both the first information reports and even a trio would agree that the substance of both the F.I.Rs. was substantially the same. It was 48,000 skins which at one point of time is stated to be the property of M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. and as per the allegations of the complainant these skins were despatched by petitioner No. 1 to the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises at Faridabad for finishing and as per the complainant, petitioner No. 1 had transferred those skins mala fide in order to cheat and defraud M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. Need not to mention that as per the allegations of the complainant, petitioner No. 1 was one of the Directors of the Company and he had 7% interest in the share, though petitioner No. 1 alleges that he had 35% interest. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that prima facie it was a dispute between petitioner No. 1 and the complainant. It was a dispute between the Director and the Managing Director and they could settle their scores on different premises and platform. Unfortunately, Shri Babu Lal Jain chose it proper to lodge F.I.R. No. 122 dated 31st October, 1994 in Police Station Sadar, Tonk. After a lapse of about two years he lodged another F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 in Police Station Central, Faridabad, the subjectmatter of which was recorded first in time, was those 48,000 skins. Assuming for the sake of argument, it is taken that petitioner No. 1 had sent those 48,000 skins to the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises at Faridabad, of which he and his son Shri H.S. Bali were the partners, still it has to be established whether those goods were transferred or despatched with a criminal intention to defraud the Company, i.e., M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. A prima facie case of civil liability at the first instance has been converted into criminal liability by the complainant, when he lodged the F.I.R. in Police Station Sadar, Tonk (Rajasthan). As the Police of Rajasthan in its wisdom did not take any action against the accused and did not think it proper to challan the accused, Shri Babu Lal Jain, respondent No. 2, thought it proper to lodge one more F.I.R. at Faridabad under the garb that the goods belonging to M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. had since allegedly been handed over to M/s Exquisite Enterprises at Faridabad, of which petitioner No. 1 and his son Shri H.S. Bali are the partners. Therefore, one more F.I.R. was recorded just to put pressure upon petitioner No. 1, so that he may settle some disputes with the complainant. Is it not a mala fide on the part of respondent No. 2? Even guideline No. 3, given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, is fully attracted in this case. Where was the entrustment to Mr. G.S. Bali, petitioner No. 1, so as to attract the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. ? Even the allegations of both the F.I.Rs. are so vague that prima facie no offence, muchless under Section 406, I.P.C., is made out.

I agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the repondents that the Company is a separate legal entity from its Directors and Managing Director, but the point for determination is whether any alleged offence, muchless under section 406, 420 or 379, I.P.C., is prima facie made out even if the allegations of the complainant are taken on their face value. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the goods were allegedly seized from the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises, belonging to M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd., still no offence visavis petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 is made out. If the goods have been delivered to the management of M/s Exquisite Enterprises for doing job work, how the criminal intention on the part of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 can be inferred ? Simply that petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2, is no ground to jump to the conclusion that everything has been done with the intention to defraud the management of M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. At the most the management of M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. can file a suit for the return of the skins, if those skins have been entrusted to the management of M/s Exquisite Enterprises, which is a separate legal entity. In case there is a rightful handing over of the goods to the management of M/s Exquisite Enterprises by the management of M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. and that the former does not want to return the goods to the latter, the right of the latter is to file a suit for the recovery of the goods or its price. Where is the criminal intention ? A civil liability cannot be allowed to be converted into a criminal one and that is the reason perhaps for which the Rajasthan Police is not taking any action on the complaint of Shri Babu Lal Jain, who thought it proper to take assistance of the Haryana Police and managed to register the second F.I.R. without disclosing to the Haryana Police that he had already got the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Sadar Tonk (Rajasthan).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, submitted that the registration of the F.I.R. at Faridabad is not barred. It is the trial of the accused which is barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The argument, to my mind, is devoid of any merit. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in guideline No. 7 has stated that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide, the F.I.R. can be quashed. Can the complainant be permitted to lodge first information reports of the same incident at different places so as to harass a citizen ? The answer of this Court would be in the negative. I have to see if the basis of the second F.I.R. is substantially the same, which was the subject matter of F.I.R. No. 122 dated 31st October, 1994, and if this Court comes to this conclusion that the second F.I.R. was a deliberate attempt on the part of Shri Babu Lal Jain, then this Court will have no difficulty for quashing the same, and I have already made up my mind after making comparative study of both the first information reports that the second F.I.R. was nothing but was substantially the same, which was lodged at the first instance and with the jugglery of words, respondent No. 2 cannot take advantage of the situation and his crude attempt to drag the petitioners into criminal proceedings cannot be encouraged. The rights of such persons are supposed to be protected. respondent No. 2 can still submit to the Magistrate in Rajasthan at the time of cancellation of F.I.R. No. 122 dated 31st October, 1994 that some offence is made out against the accused. He can independently file a criminal complaint, if so advised either in Rajasthan or at Faridabad in Haryana, if the Faridabad Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and if the F.I.R. of Rajasthan is cancelled. To take the assistance of the Police in dragging a citizen, so that he may be ridiculed, is not permitted by law and inherent powers in these circumstances can be invoked by the High Court as it becomes rarest of the rare cases. Need not to mention that the petitioners were apprehensive all the times after the institution of the present petition that the respondnetState would try to defeat the petition by filing a regular chargesheet. Vide orders dated 21st January, 1997 this Court gave directions to the Police not to file the challan in the meanwhile. These directions were necesitated because the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 had sought adjournments in order to argue the matter, though at that stage Shri Babu Lal Jain was not added as a party to the main petition. In Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, 1994(3) R.C.R. 123 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court had gone to the extent of saying that even after the framing of the charges, the provisions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be invoked, but before doing that forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions must justify such a course. This test has been applied in the present case for the invoking of powrs under Section 482, Cr.P.C., and the law does not debar that in no eventuality the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C., can be invoked when the challan has been presented and the investigation is going on. Some support can be taken from Khalsa Medical & Educational Trust v. Union of India, 1995(1) R.C.R. 247. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 relied upon Jagdish Yadav v. Ram Nandan Yadav and others, 1990 Supreme Court Cases 648, and stated that when two cases have been registered pertaining to the same incident, it should be left to the Magistrate to decide in which matter he wants to take cognizance. This authority is not applicable to the facts in hand. The case registered in Police Station Sadar, Tonk (Rajasthan), might not see the light of the day because the Rajasthan Police in its wisdom has come to the right conclusion that prima facie the accused are not guilty of an offence and for that reason the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., and the challan against the petitioners has not been filed. Faced with this difficulty, the complainant Shri Babu Lal Jain thought it proper for the registration of one more criminal case at Faridabad and he became successful with the assistance of the Police. Here I also want to discuss some of the case law which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the reliance was placed on Velji Raghavji Patel v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 S.C. 1433. This authority is not helpful to the petitioners on the proposition of law because I am dealing with a case of a company and not of a firm. Similarly the other case law, such as, Sh. Avnash Chander v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) R.C.R. 528; and Parmodh Kumar v. Satish Kumar, 1985(1) R.C.R. 446, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is distinguishable on facts.

However, this Court is the opinion that the second F.I.R. was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and should be quashed. The Faridabad Police without caring to note the contents of the first F.I.R., jumped to the conclusion that the goods which are lying in the premises of M/s Exquisite Enterprises are the stolen property. No. record has been taken to this effect that at what point of time the skins totally 48,000 and odd were entrusted by M/s Tonk Tannery (P) Ltd. to M/s Exquisite Enterprises.

In this view of the matter, I allow this petition and quash F.I.R. No. 457 dated 28th May, 1996 registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad, under Section 406, I.P.C., with all consequential proceedings. It is also declared that the seized articles shall not be considered as the case property of this F.I.R. and it shall remain in the custody of M/s Exquisite Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Before I part with this judgment, it may also be mention that vide my separate judgment of even date, I have dismissed the revision petition filed by Shri Babu Lal Jain, wherein he has attacked the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, who had released the skins in favour of M/s Exquisite Enterprises through Shri G.S. Bali, its partner.

The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.