Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing of FIR No.276 dated 10.6.2009 under Sections 406,420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (‘IPC’ for short) (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Civil Line, Rohtak District Rohtak and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had become owner of the house in question in view of the compromise effected between the parties in civil litigation vide award dated 15.4.2006 (Annexure P4). Thereafter, husband of the petitioner allegedly sold the house in question to the complainant Pritam Kaur. Petitioner had no concern with the said sale deed as the petitioner had neither signed the sale deed as a vender nor as an attesting witness. Hence, petitioner could not be criminally prosecuted for any criminal act if any committed by her husband. Further, accused Sunil Rajpal has already deposited the sale price received by him in this Court while seeking relief of anticipatory bail in this case.

3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner and her husband in connivance with each other and with an intention to defraud the complainant had executed the sale deed in question. Hence, petitioner was also liable to face the criminal proceedings.

5. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court 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 chennelised 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 complainant/respondent No.2, 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 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 uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of 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 proceeding is 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 aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view