The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the decision to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be predicated on the facts of each case. The court cautioned against embarking on an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR.

JUDGMENT

asha Menon, J. - The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for the quashing of charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from FIR No.214/2021 dated 30th October, 2021 registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini, Sector 18, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The FIR No.214/2021 was registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint that was lodged with them on 19th October, 2020 by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

2. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire case was a product of mala fide, falsehood and absurdity and this was a case of sheer abuse of the criminal process. It was his contention that the case was covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and this Court ought to quash the charge-sheet in accordance with the guidelines incorporated in Para No.102 of the said judgment. It was further submitted that the entire FIR and the charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2021 was so absurd and inherently improbable that it was liable to be quashed.

3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel was that property bearing No.17/43, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi belonged to Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. ashok Kumar, whereas the complainant who had been divorced by Mr. Sunil Datt way back in 2000 was claiming a right to the ground floor. She could produce no document to reflect that she had been in possession of the ground floor for the last two years. Moreover, after the husband and wife had divorced, it could not be reasonably believed that 17 years later the respondent No.2 would have been given the keys of the ground floor by the ex-husband. It was submitted that Smt. Janak Dulari, the aunt of Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. ashok Kumar, who are brothers, is living in the first floor of the same property and there were some disputes inter se parties. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners have been unnecessarily dragged into these disputes.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that in the initial complaint and PCR calls, the petitioners had not been named. The presence of the petitioner No.2 ajay Gupta, at the site on 28th January, 2020 was on account of the fact that the brothers, who were residents of Burmingham, United Kingdom had asked him to go to the premises at the instance of Smt. Janak Dulari, their aunt and he had only accompanied the Police. Therefore, there could be no trespass when the petitioner No.2 had gone to the property on that occasion. Subsequently, there were other complaints made to the Police against some others, such as one Mr. Prakash Chand Sharma.

5. There were complaints by the respondent No.2 against 'Uparwali' which would be only against Smt. Janak Dulari, who resided on the first floor. Furthermore, there were conflicting details given in the various complaints by the respondent No.2, sometimes alleging that Mr. Prakash Chand Sharma had been sent by Smt. Janak Dulari and sometimes alleging that he had gone there at the behest of the petitioners. There were other accusations against Mr. Santosh Kapoor, who is the Chartered accountant of Mr. Sunil Datt and Mr. ashok Kumar and, therefore, the petitioners have nothing to do with him. These contradictions were sufficient to falsify the complaint of respondent No.2.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the FIR had been registered for the commission of offences under Section 120B, 451, 323, 506, 509, 341 read with Section 34 IPC. Yet, the complainant has not disclosed any material on the basis of which any of these offences were made out against the petitioners. Hence, it was submitted that the charge-sheet be quashed.

7. Mr. Sanjay Jain, additional Solicitor General (aSG) for the respondent No.1/State appearing on advance notice, on the other hand, submitted that this petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold. Though the