ATUL KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) FIR No. 242/11 was lodged at Police Station, Gangapur, District Bhilwara under Section 407 IPC by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara and in this FIR, criminal breach of trust in relation to 78 bilties was said to have been caused by the accused-persons named therein in the year 188. After investigation, the police submitted Final Report in the matter, but Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, District Bhilwara by its order dated 23.4.2005 had taken cognisance against accused-petitioners Swarn Singh and Jagdish Singh and also against the West Bengal Transport Complex Pvt. Ltd. as well as against Jai Ma Khatod Carriers.
(2.) Accused-petitioner Swarn Singh and Jagdish Singh have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court to quash criminal proceedings against them in the matter because as per them, the case was purely a civil transaction in which the Debt Recovery Tribunal has also applied its mind and civil matter (application no. 223/16) was concluded on 2.17 by that Tribunal too.
(3.) I have heard both the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor has generally opposed the matter and the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has not contested the matter at all. No doubt, criminal liability may co-exist with the civil liability, but in this matter, after perusal of the record of the court below and after going through the judgment of the civil application no. 223/16 of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, this Court is of the firm view that the opinion given by the police while submitting the Final Report in the matter was fully justified and there was no occasion to convert the civil transaction into a case of criminal breach of trust. Otherwise also the incident relates to the year 188 and more than twenty five years have passed since then. Certainly it will be an abuse of process if the criminal trial is allowed to continue. No doubt, the Inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare case to secure the ends of justice. In the State of Haryana and ors. v. Bhajan Lal and ors., 12 Supp.(1) SCC 335, some of the circumstances were enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in which inherent powers of the Court under Section 482,Cr.P.C. may be exercised, which are as follows:- "(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) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable 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 un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a 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 proceedings 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 the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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 and personal grudge". ;