R.K.DASH, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, prayer has been made to quash the First Information Report in case Crime No. 321 of 2001, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE background facts giving rise to the aforesaid case as narrated in the First Information Report may briefly be stated thus : The trade tax officer (Mobile Squad) detained a truck carrying goods dispatched under various bills standing in the name of M/s. Maya Product India, 18/211, Maithan Near Basant Cinema, Agra. The informant being proprietor of the said firm was noticed to enlighten whether the goods were dispatched by his firm. Accordingly, he came to the trade tax office and to his utter surprise found that the bills are forged and have been printed in the name of his firm. So he lodged First Information Report alleging that the concerned transport company having printed the bills in the name of his firm, transported the goods in order to evade tax and to harm the reputation and the goodwill of his firm. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the case as aforesaid and took up investigation. The petitioner as a proprietor of M/s. Pragati Transport Company, Agra has filed the present case seeking quashing the First Information Report alleging inter alia that the informant, Respondent No. 3 herein, approached his company on 1 -9 -2001 for transportation of goods from Agra. Necessary documents along with goods were handed over by him to his agent and after completing requisite formalities goods were dispatched in a truck bearing No. MP 9 KA -4045. The truck was, however, intercepted by the mobile squad of the trade tax department and goods along with truck were taken to the trade tax office at Lakhanpur in the district of Kanpur Nagar for verification. The allegations made in the First Information Report by the Respondent No. 3 are all false and baseless and no offence is made out under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC against him as well as the driver and owner of the truck and therefore, the impugned First Information Report should be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THERE are two series : - one by the informant and other by the petitioner, proprietor of the transport company. According to the informant the bills are forged and do not belong to his firm and are not issued by his firm. Whereas the case of the petitioner is that the informant deposited the goods for transportation and handed over the bills to his agent for transportation. This plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted on its face value to through the FIR allegations overboard. A reading of FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence which requires to be investigated and taken to logical end by the police. It is well -settled by a catena of decisions of the apex Court as well as of this High Court and other High Courts that extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction or inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Founding fathers of the Constitution have not provided under what circumstances writ jurisdiction in such matters should be exercised by the High Court. So when the Court is invested with unbridled and unrestricted power, its exercise should be with circumspection where law so demands.;