T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 114 dated 12.4.2002 registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana for offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC.
(2.) FIR was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Yadwinder Singh respondent No. 2 with the allegations that on 20.2.2001, the petitioners along with Chetna Sehgal entered into an agreement with him to sell the property measuring 500 sq. yards situated at Phase-II, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana for Rs. 23,95,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. Six lacs was received as earnest money by them. It was further agreed that the sale-deed would be executed on or before 20.8.2001. However, on 20.8.2001 none of the proposed vendors appeared before Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana to executed the sale-deed. Later on, the complainant learnt that the aforementioned vendors were trying to sell the land to Pardeep Mittal and Sarita Mittal. It was also alleged that on 24.12.2001, a sale-deed was executed by the petitioners in favour of Pardeep Mittal and Sarita Mittal for an amount of Rs. eight lacs whereas in the earlier agreement to sell in favour of the complaint, the price of the property was fixed at Rs. 23,95,000/-. The complainant alleged that by under-valuing the property, the accused had been able to avoid stamp duty, thus, causing loss to State exchequer. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR was registered. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved certain illustrative guidelines for quashing of a complaint/FIR/criminal proceeding thus :- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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) .......... (3) .......... (4) .......... (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 each a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) ........ (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge."
(3.) THESE were later reiterated and followed by the Apex Court in a series of judgments with some minor additions/alternations here and there depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court went a step further in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 565 (SC), to hold that Court process could not be allowed to be used for oblique purpose and that it was for the Court to consider whether it was in the interest of justice to allow a criminal prosecution to continue. It said :- "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." ;