The court reiterated the principles for quashing FIRs as laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and emphasized that the power to quash FIRs should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

1. -Through this criminal miscellaneous petition the petitioners seek quashment of the HR No. 101/96 P.S. Jaisalmer under sections 420, 406, 419, 120-B, 465 & 467 IPC.

2. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that the complainant-respondent had purchased a truck under the Hire Purchaser Agreement, and he failed to make payment of the instalments, contended that the finance petitioners had a right to repossess the vehicle. The submission of Mr. Garg was that the dispute is of civil nature and the FIR should be quashed. He relied on the cases of Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo, 1979 SC 850 , Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa & Anr., 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 507 & K.A. Mathai @ Babu v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., (1996) 7 SCC 212 .

3. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the order hand, urged that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners, and therefore, it should not he quashed. His contention was that the petitioners cheated the complainant when they, against the agreement of supplying old model, supplied new model chassis, which was built by using spurious parts. He further contended that the petitioners took away the vehicle from the respondent-complainant on the pretext that the same would be replaced but instead of replacing or returning the vehicle to the complainant the petitioners have transferred it to someone else. According to Mr. Khatri, the facts constitute offences Ws. 420 & 406 IPC.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the contentions of Mr. Khatri.

5. Under what circumstances, FIR can be quashed, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SC 604 . After considering the various earlier decisions, their Lordships observed as follows at Para No. 108 of the report:-

"108. 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 u/Art. 226 or the inherent powers under section 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.

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 made in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable 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 of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 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