Mrs. Sabina, J. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.108-I dated 29.3.2011 titled ‘Devender Singh vs. Ashok Gupta’ under Section 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), Police Station Civil Line Hisar (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was neither beneficiary nor signatory to the sale deed in question. The property in question was owned by Saroj Devi and had been sold by her through her attorney. Petitioner had been falsely involved in this case.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was the main accused and had shown the property in question to the complainant and had allured him to buy the same, although, it was in possession of the tenant.

4. Case of the complainant, as per the complaint (Annexure P-1), in brief, is that the petitioner was on visiting terms with the complainant for the last 3-4 years. Petitioner told the complainant that he had a plot bearing khasra No.1331 (0-8) situated at Lajpat Nagar, Hisar along with accused Fateh Singh. Petitioner insisted that the complainant should purchase the said plot. On the allurement of the petitioner, complainant visited the plot on 28.3.2010. As per the documents shown by the accused, the plot was owned by Saroj Devi, wife of Fateh Singh. Complainant was also shown the General Power of Attorney executed by Saroj Devi in favour of Fateh Singh. Complainant was taken to the site, where a milk dairy was running. Petitioner and Fateh Singh assured the complainant that they were themselves running the dairy and would deliver vacant possession of the plot to him after execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant on 23.4.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 14,88,000/- by Fateh Singh being attorney of Saroj Devi. The entire sale consideration was paid by the complainant and his uncle to Fateh Singh and Ashok Gupta. Later on, complainant came to know that, in fact, the tenant was running the milk dairy at the spot. Accused had failed to get the plot vacated from the tenant. Hence, the complaint in question was filed.

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 non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an o