- (1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 230 dated 17.9.2008, under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-4) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 are residing in America. At the time of registration of FIR, petitioners were in America and have not visited India after registration of FIR. Case of the complainant is that money had been extracted by the petitioners from the complainant with a view to get green card for the husband of the complainant. However, Bhupinder Singh, who is alleged to be the husband of the complainant, has submitted an affidavit Annexure P-5 that he was not married to the complainant. He has further denied the allegation that he had paid any money to the petitioners to enable him to get permanent immigration in America.
(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners had visited India in November 2007 and Rs. 4,00,000/- had been paid to the petitioners on 24.11.2007 by Kulwant Singh. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.;