The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to demonstrate fraudulent or dishonest inducement for the offence of cheating under Section 420, IPC, and the principles for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Manish Choudhury, J. - This criminal petition is preferred under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 29.08.2019 lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Bhangagarh Police Station and which has been registered as Bhangagarh Police Station Case no. 350/2019 under Section 420, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1, State of Assam. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 2 today on call. From the records, it is found that when on the previous date of listing i.e. 30.04.2020, none had appeared for the respondent no. 2 it was observed that order would be passed on the next date fixed, 12.05.2020 irrespective of the presence of the said respondent. From the records it is also revealed that the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 had entered appearance on 19.11.2019 and their names are reflected in the cause-list. In view of the above, the matter is taken up for consideration.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the contents of the FIR, has submitted that even if all the statements and allegations made in the said FIR are accepted to be true, no ingredients attracting the offence under Section 420, IPC can be said to be demonstrated. The dispute between the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner is in respect of a shop which the petitioner used to occupy as a tenant. The respondent no. 2 had lodged the FIR when he found a new electric meter installed near the shop of which the petitioner is the tenant. No person has been named in the FIR specifically who had installed the said new electric meter. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the respondent no. 2 had alleged bad intention behind installation of the new electric meter.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the FIR.

5. The principles to be followed as regards quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) are well settled. In the decision of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 , the Supreme Court has indicated about seven categories of cases, by way of illustration, wherein the inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, with the rider that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly-defined guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of cases wherein such power should be exercised. It is observed therein as under :

wxyz

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

zyxw

wxyz

(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.

zyxw

wxyz

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within th