Paramjit Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"!
#$%&& '()!*!#+,# , '"
&&& !!
# '"
- '"."
*
.#)/# , '"
&&& "0 # #"
$ 12 & * *
!!!!
* 3&4 25
%
&'
$ $( ")*+ , $ $
- (
'2+ "* 32 '3'3
+*) '3 "'345
67
8 ,9 4"- %
.
( 2
'
4 (
(
14+*$4+'3* ( 1 ''
% 4 ( :
( 1 *+;333<4
( / 1 ;33333<4
( ( '
.
% .
1 +33333<4
4 (
(
( % 1 )&;333<4
'; 3+ '3"+ = ( 4 7 (
(
4(
8
( '3") .
( 4
+*) '3 "'345
* +
= inter alia 0 4 (
7
% ( #
.
1 '33333<4
4( ( 7 ( % .
7 ( % '; 3+ '3"+
4(
(
> "2;3+ ") "" ";
,9 4"3- ,9 4'-
.
"" / '3'3 4 (
$ =
(
=
+*) '3 ( % %
(
% 9
(
( = 4( 7 ( (
( (
( ,9 4*- 9 '+ 3+ "+
") "" '3"; ( % (7
(
;
4(
( %
4( ? ( 7 % ") "" "; %7 % , - ( .
?
/ (( ( ( 4 %
( ( ( %
2** * -
(
"; 3" '3"+
4 ( ( % ( ( 7 1 "3+;333<4 ( ( ( ( 9 '; 3+ '3"+ # ( % 4( % %
4(
%
8 '2+ "* 32 '3'3
+*) '3 "'345 ( * @ (
+*) 0$ %
( 7
7
4 ") "" '3";
%
8
( '3") (
% (
( ( %
%
(
( ( 9 0 %
9
( 7 %
7 ( 7 / 7 0
+ (
% ( 9 ( (
%
%%
(
?
9
% '
5 7
B % "12. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained..." &
( ( % % (
( 4( ( 0 4( %
.
(7
'3 0 ( % 9 ( 4 ( #
'3
";
'3 ( 1
!
#
#$$ %# &
" '()%
5
?
( % "7. Similar elucidation by this Court in "V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat"5, explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of 'cheating', as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Section 482of the Cr. P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a
person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y. Jose (supra) placed reliance on several earlier decisions in "Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI", "Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.", "Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal" and "All Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain."
) 0 % %
&'
$$
7 ( %
% ( C
9
%
( (7 0 (
( %
?
( " *
+
!
, - %
., 7
( 1
"7. While exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of
court."
( % 7
%
?
( / 0 & "
%)(
7 $ 8 A % "9. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C.In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings."
* "3 /
%
0 7 % ( %
&'
$$
%
( % (
""
$.
% 8 '2+ "* 32 '3'3
+*) '3 "'345
67
8
.
( "'
( 4 * 5 %&& Ajay Goswami 7, , '"0 8!#+9'
"
# $ "9
7, , ''
'/:
$ "9