KRISHAN KUMAR BHARADIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Krishan Kumar Bharadia, resident of Cuttack in Orissa has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the FIR No. 254 dated 19-5-1987, registered at Police Station City Sonepat, when the case is still at investigation stage. The case was registered at the instance of Arun Aggarwal, Manager, Aggarwal Oil Mills, Sonepat, who sought prosecution of the petitioner under sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the first information report sought to be quashed is annexure 'A' on the file and the same can be perused for proper assessment of the allegations made against the petitioner with regard to commission of the alleged offenses.

(2.) THE main objection raised on behalf of the respondent relates to the stage of the case, It is said that investigation of a case cannot possibly be thwarted. No doubt, ordinarily inherent powers are not exercised to interfere at the stage of investigation but there is no blanket bar in so doing and the High Court can interfere in exceptionally hard eases in order to prevent the harassment of a party by an illegal prosecution. Section 482 confers power on the High Court to pass orders ex-debo to judicial in cases where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the Court has been seriously abused. In an appropriate case it may, rather, is, permissible to protect a person from illegal and vexatious prosecutions in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court. A full Bench ruling of this Court Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 372 has made things clear in this respect. It has been held therein that there is no blanket bar against the quashing of an FIR and the consequent investigation, before a charge-sheet is filed in Court. No doubt such powers are to be exercised sparingly. The requisite preconditions for the exercise of the powers must be satisfied and one of those requisite conditions is that the first information report even if accepted as true discloses no reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence. This was also held in the basic, ruling of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866 that inherent, jurisdiction to quash proceedings should be exercised where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence alleged. The instant case squarely falls within that category and to permit prosecution therein would amount to giving of a licence for harassment of the petitioner. The apex Court held in State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guah and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 949 that it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual. As for said reason non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, it is a fit cam in which exercise of inherent powers at the stage of investigation is permissible.

(3.) FACTS alleged do not either make out alleged offence of cheating as necessary ingredient of dishonestly inducing delivery of property is badly missing. It is nowhere mentioned in the first information report if, when and in what manner the inducement was made by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is obvious from the affidavit of the complainant that petitioner perhaps never met him. It has been solemnly affirmed in para No. 2 of his affidavit that Shri Krishan Kumar Bharadia had approached the concern, of the deponent through a broker, although the name of the broker has not been disclosed therein. It is further added that then he appeared to have gone back of the commitment made with the deponent's concern through the said broker. Thus clearly business dealings between two patties were arranged through a broker and as such question of any inducement did not arise. The fact whether M/s Kohinoor Enterprises with whom complainant's concern admittedly had dealings are owned by the petitioner and Shamas-Ud-Din Khan is only a Benamidar, too, is predominantly a question of civil nature to be determined by the Civil Court for fixing the liability for payment of the goods supplied. Thus clearly the allegations made in the first information report taken at their face value do not constitute any of the alleged offences.