CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-1-
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFPUNJABANDHARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016
DateofDecision:-21stMay,2019
MandeepSaini
…Petitioner
Versus
StateofPunjabandanother
…Respondents
CORAM:-HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEMANOJBAJAJ
Present:-Mr.ParveenK.Kataria,Advocate
forthepetitioner.
Mr.HarsimarSinghSitta,AAG,Punjab.
Mr.J.S.Virk,Advocate
forrespondentNo.2.
MANOJBAJAJJ.
PetitionerMandeepSainid/oDeepakSainihasfiledthis
petitionunderSection482Cr.P.C.forquashingofFIRNo.19dated
29.2.2016,underSections406and420IPC,registeredatPoliceStation
KotIsseKha,DistrictMogaandconsequentialproceedingsarisingoutofit.
Accordingtothepetitioner,theFIRisnothingbutanabuseof
processoflaw,whichhasbeenlodgedbythecomplainant/respondentNo.2,
whoisanaccusedinacomplaintcasedated09.10.2015underSection138
oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct,1881(hereinaftertobereferredas’the
1of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-2-
Act’)broughtbyherfordishonouroftwochequesbearingNo.000104and
000105amountingtoRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-respectively.
TheFIR(AnnexureP-1)lodgedonthebasisofcomplaint
givenbyrespondentNo.2containstheallegationsthatcomplainantbeing
PanchayatSecretaryhadgonetoDistrictCourt,Chandigarhayearagofor
officialworkandafterfinishingthesamehevisitedtheshoppingmall.
TherecomplainantmetMandeepSaini(petitioner)bychanceandafter
introductiontheybothexchangedtheirmobilenumbers.MandeepSaini
allegedlyaskedcomplainantforamonetaryhelpofRs.50,000-60,000/-
withanassurancetoreturnsoon.Thecomplainantonhumanitarianground
depositedasumofRs.50,000/-approximatelyinheraccountnumber
0141000108084924withPunjabNationalBank,KotIseKhan,District
Moga.However,evenafteronemonth,theaccusedneithercalledhimnor
returnedthemoney.Upondemand,itwasassuredthatafterarrangingthe
money,shewouldreturnthemoneytothecomplainant.Whencomplainant
calledheragain,sheextendedthreatsonthegroundofherlinkswithSenior
SuperintendentofPoliceandtoimplicatehiminafalsecase.Itwasfurther
allegedthataccusedaskedhimtocometoZirakpurtotakebackhismoney,
however,shefiledafalsecomplaintonthegroundthatRajwantSinghcame
toherflatandusedabusivelanguage.ThecomplainantwascalledatPolice
Station,Zirakpurtosettlethematter.Accordingtocomplainant,on
03.7.2015healongwithotherSecretariesagainwenttoChandigarhfor
officialworkandafterfinishingthejobhereachedthePoliceStation,
ZirakpurashewascalledbySHODeepIndertopatchupthematter.Itwas
narratedthatinthepolicestation,thepoliceofficialsmisbehavedand
2of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-3-
snatchedhismobilephoneforciblyandhewasmadetosigntwocheques
amountingtoRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-atgunpointinfavourof
accusedMandeepSaini,besidesobtaininghissignatureson2-3blank
papersalso.Accordingtohim,hemadevariousvisitstoSenior
SuperintendentofPolice,Mohaliforregistrationofthecaseagainstaccused
persons,however,hiseffortsprovedfutile.
Onthecomplaint,aninquirywasmarkedbySenior
SuperintendentofPoliceMoga,whichwaslookedintobythe
SuperintendentofPolice(I),Mogaandaspertheinquiryreportdated
23.1.2016,theoffencewasfoundtohavebeencommittedbyMandeep
Sainid/oDeepakSainialoneandthecognizancewastakenagainstherby
registeringtheimpugnedFIRon29.2.2016,underSections406andSection420
IPC.
Inthispetition,noticeofmotionwasissuedon14.12.2016.
Thesaidorderreadsasunder:-
“Interalia,ithasbeencontendedbylearned
counselforthepetitionerthatFIRisnothingbutcounter-
blasttothecomplaintmovedunderSection138of
NegotiableInstrumentsActbythepetitioner.Infact,
petitionerhadalluredbythecomplainant-RajwantSingh
andreceivedasumofRs.10laconthepretextfor
sendingherabroad.Whenthemattercouldnotbe
finalized,RajwantSinghreturnedthesaidamountby
wayoftwochequesdated23.7.2015and01.8.2015in
thesumofRs.7lacsRs.3lacsrespectively,tobe
drawnatHDFCBank.Boththecomplaintsarepending
trialbeforetheJudicialMagistrateatDeraBassi,SAS
NagarMohali(Punjab).
3of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-4-Noticeofmotionfor07.04.2017.
Inthemeanwhile,furtherproceedingsbeforethe
trialCourtshallremainstayed.”
However,inresponsetothepetition,noreplywasfiledeither
bytheStateorbythecomplainantdespitevariousadjournments.
LearnedcounselforthepetitionercontendsthattheFIRhas
beenlodgedtopressurisethepetitioner/accusedtowithdrawhercomplaint
underSection138oftheAct,astwochequesamountingtoRs.7,00,000/-
andRs.3,00,000/-issuedbyRajwantSingh(complainantinthepresent
case)stooddishonoured.Learnedcounselfurtherreferstothecomplaint
dated09.10.2015underSection138oftheAct(AnnexureP-3)tocontend
thatinfactthepetitionerhadpaidasumofRs.10,00,000/-toRajwant
Singh,whohadpromisedtofacilitatehertovisitabroad.Sincehehad
failedtokeephispromise,therefore,toreturnthesaidamountof
Rs.10,00,000/-hehadissuedtwochequesandthattoopursuantto
compromisearrivedatbetweenparties.Theaffidavit(AnnexureP-2)by
respondentNo.2RajwantSinghwasswornwithregardtocompromiseand
forreturnofsaidamounttothepetitioner.
Learnedcounselforthepetitionercontendsthatafterdishonour
ofabovesaidcheques,thestatutorynoticewasissuedon27.8.2015and
uponreceiptofthesame,thecomplainant/respondentgotthisimpugned
FIRlodgedtoexertpressure.ItisfurthercontendedthataspertheFIR,the
allegedoccurrenceisof03.7.2015,whereasthecomplaintwasgivenbythe
complainanton17.9.2016,whichfurtherlendsstrengthtotheargumentof
thepetitionerthatthesameisfiledwithmalafideintentions.Itisfurther
4of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-5-
contendedthattheversiongivenintheFIRisnotworthbelievingas
accordingtothecomplainantRajwantSinghthathemetthecomplainantin
ashoppingmallandafterintroduction,agreedtoextendtheallegedloanof
Rs.50,000/-inthefirstmeetingitself.
Ontheotherhand,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2hasnot
disputedthefactofissuanceofchequesinfavourofpetitionerandthe
pendencyofthecomplaintunderSection138oftheAct.Accordingtohim,
complainanthadgivenaloanofRs.55,000/-onfourdifferentdatesi.e.
Rs.30,000/-on07.10.2014,Rs.10,000/-on22.10.2014,Rs.10,000/-on
31.10.2014andRs.5000/-on05.11.2014.Learnedcounselfurthercontends
thatsincetheamountofloanwasnotreturnedbytheaccused,therefore,he
hassufferedawrongfullossandtheoffenceofcheatingisclearlymadeout.
Accordingtohim,thepetitionisfoundedondisputedfacts,whichcanbe
effectivelydecidedafterthepartiesareallowedtoadduceevidence.
Afterhearinglearnedcounselforthepartiesandexaminingthe
materialonrecord,thisCourtfindsthatthecasesetupbythecomplainant
hasnotatallexplaineddelayofmorethanayearingivinghiscomplaintin
respectoftheallegedoccurrence.Aperusalofcomplaintshowsthatitwas
givenbythecomplainanton17.09.2015,wherein,thefirstpartcontainsthe
allegationsofadvancementoffriendlyloantoaccusedMandeepSainiin
October-November2014.Theallegedamountwasdepositedinherbank
accountondifferentdates,however,afterdemandbycomplainant,the
amountwasnotreturned.Thesecondpartofthecomplaintmentionsabout
theoccurrencedated03.7.2015,whenthecomplainantallegedlywentto
PoliceStation,ZirakpurtoseeaccusedMandeepSainiforthepurposeof
5of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-6-
receivingbackhismoneyandcompromise.ThereaccusedNo.2and3
(officialsofthepolicestation)gavehimbeatings,snatchedhismobileand
forcedhimtosignthetwochequesatgunpoint,allegedlyinfavourof
MandeepSainiforasumofRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-respectively.
Thoughcomplaintdated17.9.2015wasinquiredintoanditwasfoundthat
MandeepSainicommittedafraud,whocheatedthecomplainant,however,
nooffencewasfoundtohavebeencommittedbythepoliceofficersof
PoliceStation,Zirakpur.Itisapparentthatthespecificallegationslevelled
bythecomplainantinthecomplaintregardingoccurrencedated03.7.2015
inrespectofbeatings,snatchingofphoneorforcinghimtosigntwo
chequeswerefoundtobeuntrueasnocognizancewastakeninrespectof
theallegedoffences.Undisputedly,RajwantSinghisfacingprosecutionin
acomplaintcaseunderSection138oftheActinrespectofdishonourofthe
twochequesforasumofRs.7,00,000/-andRs.3,00,000/-respectively,
issuedbyhiminfavourofMandeepSaini.Thedatesonthesaidcheques
areofJulyandAugust2015andthestatutorynoticefordemandofpayment
wasissuedbyMandeepSainion27.8.2015.Therefore,itisabsolutelyclear
thatafterserviceofthesaidnotice,thecomplainantswungintoactionand
submittedcomplainton17.9.2015tosetuphisdefenceinthesaid
complaintcasethatthechequeswereobtainedfromhimforcibly.The
issuanceofnoticebythepetitionerundertheSectionNegotiableInstrumentsAct,
1881andreplybyRajwantSinghwerealsonoticedintheinquirybythe
police,butstrangelyaconclusionwasdrawntoregisterthecaseagainst
MandeepSainiforcommittingtheoffenceunderSections406andSection420IPC,
i.e.non-paymentofallegedloanamount.
6of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-7-
Apartfromtheabove,acloseanalysisofimpugnedFIRleaves
noroomforanydoubtthattheingredientstoconstitutetheoffences
punishableunderSections406andSection420IPCaremissing.Thedefinitionof
criminalbreachoftrustiscontainedinSection405IndianPenalCodeand
thesamereadsasunder:-
“405.Criminalbreachoftrust
Whoever,beinginanymannerentrustedwith
property,orwithanydominionoverproperty,
dishonestlymisappropriatesorconvertstohisown
usethatproperty,ordishonestlyusesordisposesof
thatpropertyinviolationofanydirectionoflaw
prescribingthemodeinwhichsuchtrustistobe
discharged,orofanylegalcontract,expressor
implied,whichhehasmadetouchingthedischarge
ofsuchtrust,orwillfullysuffersanyotherpersonso
todo,commits”criminalbreachoftrust”.”
Areadingoftheabovemakesitclearthatessentialingredients
toconstitutecriminalbreachoftrustis”EntrustmentofProperty”and
“Dishonestuseofthesame”.AsperfactsgivenintheFIR,theelementof
entrustmentismissinganditisthecaseofthecomplainanthimselfthatit
wasavoluntaryactonhisparttoadvanceafriendlyloantoMandeepSaini
forherdomesticuse.Thenecessaryingredientsof”entrustment”and
“dishonestuse”arelackingintheaboveFIR,and,therefore,thecognizance
inrespectoftheoffenceunderSection406IPCisnotjustified.
Similarly,theoffenceofcheatingisdefinedunderSection415
IndianPenalCode,whichreadsasunder:-
“415.Cheating
Whoever,bydeceivinganyperson,fraudulentlyor
dishonestlyinducesthepersonsodeceivedto
deliveranypropertytoanyperson,ortoconsent
thatanypersonshallretainanyproperty,or7of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-8-intentionallyinducesthepersonsodeceivedtodo
oromittodoanythingwhichhewouldnotdoomit
ifhewerenotsodeceived,andwhichactor
omissioncausesorislikelytocausedamageor
harmtothatpersoninbody,mind,reputationor
property,issaidto”cheat”.
Explanation.Adishonestconcealmentoffactsis
deceptionwithinthemeaningofthissection.”
Againthereisnoinducementonthepartofthepetitioner
muchlessbydeceivinghimandthereforetheoffenceofcheatingwouldnot
bemadeout,merelybecauseofbreachofpromisebytheborrowertoreturn
theloanamount.ThisCourtisnotobliviousofthefactthatallegationsof
thecomplainantregardingsigningthechequesatgunpointwerenot
believedasnooffenceinthatregardwasregisteredbythepolice.The
allegedloanofapproximatelyRs.50,000/-wasadvancedbycomplainantin
theyear2014anditdoesnotappealtoprudenceastowhyrespondentNo.2
issuedthechequesworthRs.10,00,000/-inJuly/August2015infavourof
thepetitionerMandeepSaini.Theallegationsofthecomplainantregarding
advancementofloanarefurtherbeliedbyhisownactandconductasby
issuanceofchequesinfavourofMandeepSaini,itisevidentthatheowed
moneytowardsherandtodischargethesaidliability,thechequeswere
issued.Therefore,cognizanceinrespectoftheoffenceunderSection420
IPCisalsonotsustainable.
Evenforthesakeofargumentsifitisassumedthatitwas
actuallyaloan,asallegedbythecomplainant,whichtheaccused
(petitioner)hadfailedtoreturn,eventhenitwouldnotbeapenaloffence
punishableunderSectiontheIndianPenalCode.Itwouldbeusefultorelyuponthe
judgmentofHon’bleSupremeCourtinSatishchandraRatanlalShahvs.
8of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-9-
StateofGujaratandanotherinCriminalAppealNo.9of2019(Arising
outofSLP(Crl.)No.5223of2018),decidedon03.1.2019,whereinthe
penalproceedingsbasedonthesimilargroundsofnon-paymentofloan
amountweresetasideandthesaidproceedingsbasedontheFIRwere
quashed.Therelevantparagraphsarereproducedhereunder:-
“xxxxxx
10.Beforeweanalysethiscase,itistobenotedthat
thecriminalapplicationpreferredbytheaccusedbefore
theHighCourtwasagainsttheorderoftheTrialCourt
atthestageofframingofcharges,whereinitistheduty
oftheCourttoapplyitsjudicialmindtothematerial
placedbeforeitandtocometoaclearconclusionthata
primafaciecasehasbeenmadeoutagainsttheaccused.
Anorderforframingofchargesisofseriousconcernto
theaccusedasitaffectshislibertysubstantially.Courts
mustthereforebecautiousthattheirdecisionatthis
stagecausesnoirreparableharmtotheaccused.
11.Comingtotheaspectofquashingofthecharges,
itiswellsettledthatsuchexerciseneedstobe
undertakenbytheHighCourtinexceptionalcases.Itis
alsowellsettledthattheframingofchargesbeinginitial
stagesinthetrialprocess,thecourtthereincannotbase
thedecisionofquashingthechargeonthebasisofthe
qualityorquantityofevidencerathertheenquirymust
belimitedtoaprimafacieexamination.[refertoSectionState
ofBiharvs.RameshSingh,1977CriLJ1606].
12.Havingobservedthebackgroundprinciples
applicableherein,weneedtoconsidertheindividual
chargesagainsttheappellant.TurningtoSection405
readwith406ofSectionIPC,weobservethatthedisputearises
outofaloantransactionbetweentheparties.Itfalls
9of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-10-
fromtherecordthattherespondentNo.2knewthe
appellantandtheattendantcircumstancesbefore
lendingtheloan.Furtheritisanadmittedfactthatin
ordertorecovertheaforesaidamount,therespondent
No.2hadinstitutedasummarycivilsuitwhichisstill
pendingadjudication.Thelawclearlyrecognizesa
differencebetweensimplepayment/investmentofmoney
andentrustmentofmoneyorproperty.Amerebreachof
apromise,agreementorcontractdoesnot,ipsofacto,
constitutetheoffenceofthecriminalbreachoftrust
containedinSection405IPCwithouttherebeingaclear
caseofentrustment.”
Atthisstageitwillbeusefultoreferthepronouncementofthe
Hon’bleSupremeCourtonexerciseofpowerunderSection482Cr.P.C.
TheinherentpowerscontainedinSection482Cr.P.C.aremeanttodeal
withasituationwherethecriminalproceedingsareattendedwithmalafide
intentionsandtheexerciseofinherentpowersiswarrantedtopreventthe
abuseoftheprocessoflaw.SectionInStateofHaryanaandothersvs.Ch.
BhajanLalandothers,1992Supp(1)SupremeCourtCases335,the
ApexCourthasheldasunder:-
“Thefollowingcategoriesofcasescanbestatedbyway
ofillustrationwhereintheextraordinarypowerunderSectionArticle
226ortheinherentpowersunderSection482,SectionCr.P.C.canbe
exercisedbytheHighCourteithertopreventabuseofthe
processofanycourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice,
thoughitmaynotbepossibletolaydownanyprecise,clearly
definedandsufficientlychannelisedandinflexibleguidelines
orrigidformulaeandtogiveanexhaustivelistofmyriadkinds
ofcaseswhereinsuchpowershouldbeexercised:-
(1)Wheretheallegationsmadeinthefirstinformation10of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-11-reportorthecomplaint,eveniftheyaretakenattheirface
valueandacceptedintheirentiretydonotprimafacie
constituteanyoffenceormakeoutacaseagainstthe
accused.
(2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirstinformationreportand
othermaterials,ifany,accompanyingtheFIRdonot
discloseacognizableoffence,justifyinganinvestigationby
policeofficersunderSection156(1)oftheCodeexceptunder
anorderofaMagistratewithinthepurviewofSection155
(2)SectionoftheCode.
(3)WheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeintheFIR
orcomplaintandtheevidencecollectedinsupportofthe
samedonotdisclosethecommissionofanyoffenceand
makeoutacaseagainsttheaccused.
(4)Where,theallegationsintheFIRdonotconstitutea
cognizableoffencebutconstituteonlyanon-cognizable
offence,noinvestigationispermittedbyaPoliceOfficer
withoutanorderofMagistrateascontemplatedunder
Section155(2)oftheCode.
(5)WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIRorcomplaintare
soabsurdandinherentlyimprobableonthebasisofwhich
noprudentpersoncaneverreachajustconclusionthatthere
issufficientgroundforproceedingagainsttheaccused.
(6)Wherethereisanexpresslegalbarengraftedinanyof
theprovisionsSectionoftheCodeortheconcernedAct(under
whichacriminalproceedingisinstituted)totheinstitution
andcontinuanceoftheproceedingsand/orwherethereis
specificprovisioninSectiontheCodeortheconcernedAct,
providingefficaciousredressforthegrievanceofaggrieved
party.
(7)Whereacriminalproceedingismanifestlyattendedwith
malafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciously
institutedwithanulteriormotiveforwreakingvengeanceon11of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-12-theaccusedandwithaviewtospitehimduetoprivateand
personalgrudge.
Wealsogiveanoteofcautiontotheeffectthatthepowerof
quashingacriminalproceedingshouldbeexercisedvery
sparinglyandwithcircumspectionandthattoointherarest
ofrarecases;thatthecourtwillnotbejustifiedinembarking
uponanenquiryastothereliabilityorgenuinenessor
otherwiseoftheallegationsmadeintheFIRorthe
complaintandthattheextraordinaryorinherentpowersdo
notconferanarbitraryjurisdictiononthecourttoact
accordingtoitswhimorcaprice.”
TheaboveviewwasfurtheradoptedbytheSupremeCourtin
SectionM/sPepsiFoodsLtd.vs.SpecialJudicialMagistrate1997(4)RCR
(Criminal)761.FurtherinSectionS.W.Palanitkarvs.StateofBihar2001(4)
RCR(Criminal)572,theproceedingsunderchallengepertainedtoa
complaintcasebroughtunderChapterXVoftheCodeofCriminal
ProcedureandtheHon’bleSupremeCourtwhiledealingwiththepowers
underSection482Cr.P.C.,madethefollowingobservations:-
“27……..Theapproachandconsiderationswhile
exercisingpowerandjurisdictionbyaMagistrateatthe
timeofissuingprocessaretobeintermsofSections200
toSection203underSectionChapterXVofCriminalProcedureCode,
havingdueregardtothepositionoflawexplainedin
variousdecisionsofthisCourt,andwhereaswhile
exercisingpowerunderSection482ofCriminal
ProcedureCodetheHighCourthastolookattheobject
andpurposeforwhichsuchpowerisconferredonit
underthesaidprovision.Exerciseofinherentpoweris
availabletotheHighCourttogiveeffecttoanyorder
underSectiontheCriminalProcedureCode,ortopreventabuse12of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-13-oftheprocessofanyCourtorotherwisetosecurethe
endsofjustice.Thisbeingtheposition,exerciseof
powerunderSection482CriminalProcedureCode
shouldbeconsistentwiththescopeandambitofthe
sameinthelightofthedecisionsaforementioned.In
appropriatecases,topreventjudicialprocessfrom
beinganinstrumentofoppressionorharassmentinthe
handsoffrustratedorvindictivelitigants,exerciseof
inherentpowerisnotonlydesirablebutnecessaryalso,
sothatthejudicialforumoftheCourtmaynotbe
allowedtobeutilisedforanyobliquemotive.Whena
personapproachestheHighCourtunderSection482
CriminalProcedureCodetoquashtheveryissueof
process,theHighcourtonthefactsandcircumstances
ofacasehastoexercisethepowerswithcircumspection
asstatedabovetoreallyservethepurposeandobject
forwhichtheyareconferred.”
Apartfromit,thereisnothingonrecordtoindicatethat
anythinghadhappenedwithinthejurisdictionofPoliceStationMoga,
wherethecognizanceoftheallegedoffencescontainedintheimpugned
FIRwastakenbythepolice.Sections177andSection178oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedurecontemplatetheplaceofinquiryandtrialofanoffence,which
readasunder:-
“177.Ordinaryplaceofinquiryandtrial-Every
offenceshallordinarilybeinquiredintoandtriedbya
courtwithinwhoselocaljurisdictionitwascommitted.
178.Placeofinquiryortrial.-(a)Whenitisuncertain
inwhichofseverallocalareasanoffencewas
committed,or
(b)whereanoffenceiscommittedpartlyinonelocal
13of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-14-areaandpartlyinanother,or
(c)whereanoffenceisacontinuingone,and
continuestobecommittedinmorelocalareasthan
one,or
(d)whereitconsistsofseveralactsdoneindifferent
localareas,itmaybeinquiredintoortriedbya
Courthavingjurisdictionoveranyofsuchlocal
areas.”
AperusaloftheFIRrevealsthatacommoncasewassetupby
respondent,asfarastheoccurrencedated03.7.2015isconcerned,which
tookplaceatPoliceStation,Zirakpurandspecificallegationsweremade
againstthetwopoliceofficials.Oncethismaterialpartofthecomplaint
wasdisbelieved,therewasnooccasionforthepolicetoregistertheFIR
onlyinrespectoftheoffencespunishableunderSections406andSection420IPC
atMoga.Thetransactionofadvancementofloanandnon-paymentofthe
samebypetitionerisnotonlyadisputeprimarilyofacivilnaturebutthe
ingredientsoftheseoffencesarealsomissingasdiscussedabove.
ThisCourtiswellawarethatmerelackofterritorial
jurisdictionmaynotbeagroundforquashingtheFIRbutinthepeculiar
factsandcircumstancesofthiscase,itcanbesafelyheldthatthePolice
StationMoga,hadnojurisdictiontoentertainthecomplaintparticularlyin
respectoftheoffencesunderSections406andSection420IPCforwhichtheFIR
hasbeenregistered.Theremaybecases,whereafterregistrationofacase,
theinvestigationcouldbetransferredtothepolicestation,wherethe
territorialjurisdictionlies,butinthebackgroundofthiscaseandthe
conductofthecomplainant,itisapparentthatthecomplaintwaspurposely
14of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::
CriminalMisc.No.M-44238of2016-15-
giventogetthistailor-madeFIRregisteredagainstthepetitioner.
Inviewoftheabovefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,this
Courtfindsthatthepresentcaseisafitcaseforexerciseofpowerunder
Section482Cr.P.C.astheFIRisnothingbutanabuseoftheprocessofthe
law.Resultantly,theimpugnedFIRNo.19dated29.2.2016,underSections
406andSection420IPC,registeredatPoliceStationKotIsseKha,DistrictMoga
andtheproceedingsarisingoutofitareherebyquashed.
Thepetitionstandsallowed.
21stMay,2019(MANOJBAJAJ)
VijayAsijaJUDGE
Whetherspeaking/reasonedYes/No
WhetherReportableYes/No
15of15
23-06-201918:21:06:::