Mangal Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab

 
   
 

 ! !"#$# %&$ '('$ )

 

 

   

  

& *+,-
.- 

 


 

  ! """"

.-)/012& # 

 

$%  &'( )*

+,--*+,



)),.++)/0.*1 -*+'2 



 

 
  

3   



+/022

0*/-*-*  



&'4 



 



 5 4

64 

    

17.8

  0/0!9  



 

! 4  

 4$  4   4



4

# 

: ;

 $

( + :
  4 

$ 4    



 # 

4



# 

 4 8 +/*--*+,

$ 4   4  



 ! 4 ; $

;

 



#   ;/*:,*









( + $

4 ! 4 





 ; ! 4 '

 $ 4  

 ;

 # 

 4 

&'
 4



  4

!

 <

 $

 =<   

 ( <:0-::1+*,<:+*:>?:+.//<:

+* @:,/.,  <:+*:&:*00-    <:+*:><:/1-1    

  4

4  

 

  

 



;

    ( <:+*: @:,/.,4



 #  

 4$ 

)/0'24



 :   

'

 8



  4 <

  



(  , ;
 

;

     (   <:+* @:,/.,  ?



;

 4   ;        

       $     

 4   ?



 



 4

 



& 4

  ;

 

 

 

     

 ?



   





)),'2# 

 

$  



 4  



 4   ! 4   

&

   

 





  

 

 3,11'33#%45%6,5!-  !

#50%3 5!0$)

7/82
/
0#9#%1278 






           

   

 !"#

 

$%    &     '



   

                       &                  ( 

 !"#

 

$% !

 

 ()     

      

      

        $ 

!         * 

+(

   !

      

   $(     (



    

!

      ( "  $     !   

 

      ,  

         

-

   

  .     % !  #"  /    
% 01(   

 2

     

       

   (

  (3 4

       (      0    ; 

 





% 

# 

 





   %

  

;

;    

   4

 % 

&' :

 

   ! 4  



:

 



 

   ' 5#$5;'%%#<0#$5%%6,5!-  !/ 6 , 


!15#2%3% 5!0)
0#9#%1==!1 $,7:78

3!"#3!3 % ,:,





 

 "13. Bearing in mind the principles for exercise of jurisdiction in a proceeding for quashing, let us now turn to the materials in this case. On careful reading of the complaint and the order passed by the Magistrate, what is discernible is that a possible view is taken that the cheques drawn were, in discharge of a debt for purchase of shares. In any case, when there is legal presumption, it would not be judicious for the quashing Court to carry out a detailed enquiry on the facts alleged, without first permitting the trial Court to evaluate the evidence of the parties. The quashing Court should not take upon itself, the burden of separating the wheat from the chaff where facts are contested. To say it differently, the quashing proceedings must not become an expedition into the merits of factual dispute, so as to conclusively vindicate either the complainant or the defence.

14. The parameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings under S.482 CrPC, have been spelled out by Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian for the two judges' bench in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and the suggested precautionary principles serve as good law even today, for invocation of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

103. 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

8 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."

xx xx xx

16. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint."

( 

% 

&'

 

.-   $ '('$ )

$ +A

 $B

B(

-A

  B(