GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that FIR No. 68/2000 pending investigation at Police Station Abu Road District Sirohi for the offence and section 406 and 420 IPC alleged to have been lodged against the accused petitioners be quashed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- The complainant-respondent No. 2 Shailash Kumar Patel lodged a report with the Police Station Abu Road District Sirohi on 5. 4. 2000 stating inter-alia that he purchased a single colour sheet-fed offset machine of the size measuring 19"x27" complete with standard accessories from accused petitioner No. 1 Prakash Offset Private Ltd. Ballabhgarh, Faridabad (haryana) for a consideration of Rs. 9,13,000/- through bill dated 24. 6. 1998. IT was further stated in the report that when the said machine was received by the complainant-respondent No. 2, it was not found in proper working condition and, therefore, a complaint was made by the complainant-respondent No. 2 to the manufacture of that machine and on 2. 2. 1999, a mechanic came, but he could not repair that machine and, thereafter, on 6. 2. 1999, Ravi jain, marketing Manager of Prakash Offset Private Ltd. came to Abu Road and inspected that machine and he found that the said machine could not be repaired at Abu Road and therefore, he asked that either it could be repaired there or it could be replaced by new machine. Thereafter, on 11. 2. 1999, the complainant-respondent No. 2 received the machine from petitioner No. 1 Prakash Offset Pvt. Ltd. and he found that the said machine was not the same which was returned by him and there was difference between model and size also. When it was put into run, it did not give better production. Hence, by sending another machine, the firm Prakash Offset Pvt. Ltd. cheated the complainant-respondent no. 2. On this report, police registered the case being FIR No. 68/2000 and started investigation. Hence, the present petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioners for quashing the said FIR. In this petition , the case of the accused petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 Prakash Offset Private Ltd. is a Company Registered under the Indian Companies Act and the petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 are Directors of the petitioner No. 1 Company and the petitioners No. 5 and 6 are holding the office of Manager (Marketing) and Sales Executive respectively in that Company. The petitioner no. 1 Company installed a new machine at the factory of the complainant-respondent No. 2 on 14. 2. 1999. Admitting that no doubt the machine which was sent subsequently was slightly different in size etc. etc. , it has been contended:- 1. That the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and at the most of breach of contract and no criminal liability arises from the facts of the present case. 2. That neither there is criminal breach of trust nor case of cheating is made out against the accused petitioners as the machine in question was replaced by a new machine. It is, therefore, prayed that this misc. petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. be allowed and the FIR in question be quashed. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that a case of cheating has been clearly made out against the accused petitioners as the replaced machine was not the same for which order was booked. hence, this petition be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 and perused the case diary. The legal position on the subject is very much clear from the various authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Murad Ali Khan (1), it has been held that jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage a Court should not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceeding must the exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR of the complainant. It has been held that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
(3.) THIS Court while admitting this petition on 29. 5. 2000 passed an order that the accused petitioners shall not be arrested, but investigation may continue and in compliance of that order, the investigation was going on in that case and from the case diary, it appears that the investigation has reached at the final stage and challan papers are ready for filing before the Court and, in these circumstances, this Court does not think it proper to interfere with the investigation of the police and quash the FIR in exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. In Jehan Singh vs. Delhi Administration (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if no chargesheet or complaint has been laid down in Court and the matter is only at the stage of investigation by police the High Court cannot in exercise of in- herent jurisdiction interfere with the statutory power of the police to interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate the alleged offence and quash proceeding. In M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. vs. Chaitanya Kumar (4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held:- " The investigation to an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government and the Court is not justified without any compelling and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation. Thus where the investigation which is still on its way and the further investigation in the offence is legally permissible as contemplated by Section 173 (8) of Cr. P. C. the quashing of investigation by the High Court would not be permissible. " ;