- (1.) Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 191, dated 17.8.2004, registered under Sections 406/420 of the IPC, at Police Station, Sector 31, Faridabad.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR does not disclose the commission of an offence. The facts, narrated in the FIR, disclose a civil dispute with regard to ownership of plot No. 10, Block No. 16, Spring Field Colony, Extension No. 1, Faridabad and, therefore, the FIR be quashed. It is contended that one Smt. Oberoi was allotted the aforementioned plot in 1963 for a total consideration of Rs. 13,300/-. She paid Rs. 9,193/- upto 1971. The balance amount of Rs. 4,103/- was not paid and, therefore, any rights that may have arisen/conferred upon her, pursuant to the aforementioned allotment, came to an end by efflux of time. The petitioners sold the said plot to one Sanjay Dawar in the year 2003. It is further contended that the aforementioned facts do not disclose the commission of any criminal offence, but the existence of a simple civil dispute. It is contended that it has been repeatedly held that where the FIR discloses a civil dispute, namely, the violation of an agreement to sell, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, in the absence of any facts, leading to an inference of mens rea/dishonest intention, should be quashed. It is also urged that the allotment was made in the year 1963, but the FIR has been lodged in the year 2003. It is contended that this delay is sufficient to quash the FIR. Reliance is placed upon Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh, 1999 AIR(SC) 1480; Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava, 2005 AIR(SC) 1047; Manisha Goyal v. State of Punjab, 2006 1 RCR(Cri) 162 and Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chadrojirao Angre, 1988 AIR(SC) 709.
(3.) It is further contended that the High Court can quash an FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom at any stage and the fact that investigation is pending, does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction to quash an FIR, which appears to be an abuse of the process of the law. For the above proposition, reliance is placed upon R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866; State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, 1982 AIR(SC) 949; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604; M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 AIR(SC) 128 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Md. Sharaful Haque, 2005 AIR(SC) 9.;