The court can quash criminal proceedings if the intention of the complainant is malicious and not to vindicate the law for the good of the society, and if the allegations do not satisfy the legal ingredients of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR No. 192 dated 12.06.2018 under Sections 186 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Jhirka, District Nuh (Mewat) (Annexure P-1) alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR in the present case was got registered by Attar Singh, ASI. As per the complainant, at about 07:30 AM on 31.10.2017, he received a phone call on his official mobile phone from one mobile no. 7015531897 and the caller asked him as to who he was. He replied that he was Incharge of the Police Post. The caller from the opposite side stated that he was Ram Avtar Singla and what evidence has been collected in the present case. The complainant replied that he had brought the record from Naveen, stamp paper vendor, Nageena and had inquired from him about the dates, on which Ram Avtar Singla had purchased the stamps from him. On this, Ram Avtar Singla said that stamp would be purchased by anyone. As per the complainant, he had collected the information from several persons. The caller asked him as to whether he had gone to Mohd. Ali and the complainant replied that he had gone to him and had enquired orally and the record was yet to be taken from him. On this, Ram Avtar Singla stated that the complainant was favouring the complainant in the said criminal case. The complainant replied that he had to collect the evidence in the case. On this Ram Avtar Singla, said that he would get the enquiry conducted against him and would also make a complaint to the SP and he threatened to see him. As per the complainant, Ram Avtar Singla, had obstructed in discharge of the official duties by interfering in the investigation and he had identified the voice of Ram Avtar Singla properly, who had earlier also made phone calls to him and pressurized him. The complainant further stated that he had informed the higher officers in this regard and that person might lodge a false complaint against the official complainant and can also cause harm to him. With these broad allegations, the FIR was got registered by the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a respectable person of the society and had also remained as Member of the District Grievances Redressal Committee several times. Even as per the complainant himself, he had received a phone call from the present petitioner on 31.10.2017. Since no cognizable offence was made out on the basis of the phone call made by the petitioner, only DDR No.14 dated 31.10.2017 was got registered by Attar Singh, ASI, complainant. In the present case, the complainant himself was a police official and since no cognizable offence was committed, he never got the FIR registered against the present petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the hearing in a case arising out of FIR No.434 dated 21.10.2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Firozpur Zhirka was fixed before this Court on 22.05.2018. Vide the order Annexure P-2 dated 22.05.2018, this Court had directed the learned State counsel to file a status report with regard to DDR No.14 dated 31.10.2017 by the next date of hearing and the matter was adjourned to 10.07.2018. In the interregnum, the DDR No.14 dated 31.10.2017 was converted into a FIR on 12.06.2018 and a criminal case under Section 186, 506 IPC was ordered to be registered against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ingredients of the offence under Section 186/506 of IPC are completely missing in the instant case. Consequently, when the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. PC. Still further, in the present case, criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala f