Niranjan Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 107 dated 24.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) u/s 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Lambi District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Lambardar vide order dated 18.9.2007. However, the said order was set aside in appeal filed by the petitioner. Revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 against the order in appeal dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab on 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). Writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by this Court on 15.3.2011 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner was issued identity card on 18.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) after his appeal was allowed by the Commissioner. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he had attested the affidavit of Ramandeep Kaur although he was not a lambardar were liable to be quashed.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has further submitted that petitioner had never worked as a Lambardar. In fact, respondent No. 2 had been appointed as a Lambardar. This court vide order dated 18.12.2009 had ordered that respondent No. 2 be not dislodged if he was already working as Lambardar. Thereafter, the writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure P-6).

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , 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 u/s 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 channelised 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 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 u/s 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 u/s 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

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.

In the present case, admittedly, respondent No. 2 was appointed by the Collector as a Lambardar vide order dated 18.9.2007. The said order was set aside in appeal by the Commissioner vide order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). Revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) vide order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). In CWP No. 19653 of 2009 filed by respondent No. 2 challenging orders of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, it was ordered on 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) that if respondent No. 2 Jatinder Singh was working as a Lambardar then he shall not be dislodged. Thereafter, writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure P-6). Annexure P-3 is the identity card issued in favour of the petitioner as Lambardar on 18.11.2008. Thus, after the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner, he was issued an identity card by the Naib Tehsildar on 18.11.2008 as a Lambardar. There is nothing on record to suggest that the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner had been stayed by the Financial Commissioner. In fact, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) was also not stayed by this Court. This Court had only ordered by way of interim arrangement that in case Jatinder Singh-respondent No. 2 was working as a Lambardar then he shall not be dislodged. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 had failed to show any document to the effect that respondent No. 2 had continued as a Lambardar after the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner on 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-2). In these circumstances, criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of un-dated affidavit of Ramandeep Kaur is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 107 dated 24.8.2010 u/s 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Lambi District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.