Gujarat High Court
Jaybhai Atulbhai Gondaliya vs State Of Gujarat on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10266 of 2025
==========================================================
JAYBHAI ATULBHAI GONDALIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave assisted by Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1
- State of Gujarat.
[2.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR dated 09.07.2025 being CR No.02 of 2025 registered with ACB Police Station, District Amreli for the offences under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act").
[3.0] The brief facts of the is that, respondent No.3 herein - original complainant filed a complaint with the Amreli ACB Police Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined Station in the year 2022 alleging that he had to obtain property cards for 15 sub-plots and hence, the complainant met the present petitioner - accused in the end of January, 2022 and for the said work, the petitioner - accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- pursuant to which the ACB Police Station, Amreli set a trap and the complainant alongwith panch witnesses visited the place of alleged offence however, as the petitioner did not demand the illegal gratification, trap failed and hence, FIR was not registered. However, after a lapse of 3 years, for the same alleged offence, impugned FIR is filed.
[4.0] Learned Advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the petitioner has submitted that impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and petitioner has nothing to do with the offence alleged against him. The impugned FIR is filed after a huge and unexplained delay of 3 years. Further, the petitioner is a government servant having blotless career and quite innocent and till date, department has not issued any show- cause notice to the petitioner and no any departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. The impugned FIR is nothing but filed malafide with ulterior motive. Initially the complaint was filed and trap was laid however, it failed. As the trap pursuant to initial complaint failed, there was no occasion to file a new FIR for the same alleged incident however, the FIR is registered though complainant himself claims that no demand was made or no any work was pending with him. Even, there is delay of 3 years in lodging the impugned FIR as the alleged offence of demand took place in January, 2022 and impugned offence is registered in July, 2025. Earlier Investigating Officer did not register the FIR even for Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined the demand as he felt that there was no evidence to prosecute the petitioner - accused. Thereafter, new Investigating Officer has taken the charge though he cannot revisit the decision of earlier IO and file an FIR for the alleged offence which was already over way back in the year 2022 itself. Hence, this is a case of double jeopardy as the petitioner - accused need not face investigation for the same offence twice. Further, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the offence and hence, he has requested to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned proceedings.
[5.0] Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave assisted by learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak for respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat has vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that there is no delay in filing of the impugned FIR as after preliminary investigation, anyhow the complainant receded from his own version and he was not inclined to further pursue with his complaint but the conversation and the voice recording confirms the factum of demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner - accused and attempt of demand itself of illegal gratification is an offence. After drawing the panchnama, if the petitioner accepted the illegal gratification then question does not arise to invoke the provision of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act after acceptance and recovery of said illegal gratification but herein, petitioner - accused came to know about the trap and hence, showing his vigilance he pointed to the conversation but during the panchnama when the complainant called the present petitioner, at that time, he has stated to part with amount of illegal gratification to one Lalabhai and hence, clear case of demand is made out and voice spectrography test Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined is yet to be conducted and investigation is at nascent stage and even, the petitioner has refused to give his voice sample which clearly shows his intention and clear presumption can be made as to why the petitioner has refused to do so.
[5.1] Further, merely because the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail is not a ground to quash and set aside the proceedings. Further, this is not a case where investigation was over and final report was submitted and thereafter another complaint is registered. Even otherwise, after investigation, if sufficient evidence or material is collected and charge-sheet is filed, even thereafter the petitioner - accused is having a right to seek quashing of the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet however, this is not the stage where present petition seeking quashing of impugned FIR is required to be entertained. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present petition.
[6.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.
[6.1] Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and perusing the investigation papers, it appears that present petitioner - accused being government servant demanded illegal gratification and for that following the procedure of law, trap was initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant wherein it was alleged that as the complainant was in need of property card of 15 sub- plots, on 28.01.2022, he met the petitioner - accused for the Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined said work and the petitioner - accused made a demand of Rs.25,000/- and said conversation was recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant - respondent No.3 herein.
[6.2] On the same day, in presence of two panch witnesses, relevant documents were submitted in support of the complaint filed by the complainant. Two panch witnesses were summoned, preliminary panchnama was drawn on the same day and in the preliminary panchnama, transcript of the recording is also mentioned verbatim and on 30.01.202, yadi was sent for arrangement of panch witnesses and on 30.01.2022 at 6 O' Clock, preliminary panchnama was drawn by I/c. Police Inspector Mr. D.K. Vaghela, Amreli ACB Police Station. On the next day, Mr. D.K. Vaghela went to the office of present petitioner and at that time, respondent No.3 stated that the present petitioner has refused to accept the illegal gratification and that he will complete the pending work on Thursday and hence, the complainant requested to keep pending the trap and respondent No.3 gave an understanding to I/c. PI Mr. Vaghela to remain silent about the proposed trap. On the same day, another statement of complainant is recorded by I/c. PI Mr. Vaghela wherein the complainant got recorded that petitioner has not made any demand of illegal gratification and requested to drop the trap proceeding. Thereafter, a fax message was submitted by the same Investigating Officer. Thus, prima facie, it appears that on the same day, once trap was postponed including muddamal currency notes and audio recording card kept with I/c. Police Inspector Mr. Vaghela and respondent No.3 has stated that he is having no faith that without accepting illegal gratification, petitioner would complete his work.
Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined Though on the same day, same officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.3 wherein it is stated that in presence of panch witnesses present petitioner stated that on Thursday he will complete the work and will issue the property cards. Thereafter, once again he said that the petitioner has not demanded any illegal gratification and property card is received by him. As two contradictory statements are recorded on the same day i.e. on 30.01.2022 by the same I/c. Police Inspector Mr. Vaghela, it speaks volumes about not only the conduct of the complainant but also the I/c. Police Inspector Mr. D.K. Vaghela, Amreli ACB Police Station. Once the petitioner assured that, he will complete the work on Thursday then question does not arise to say that on the same day he has already provided the property card and he did not want to further proceed with his complaint.
[6.3] Thereafter, belatedly on 22.05.2022, fac message was sent by another Police Inspector Mr. C.G. Rathod to the Director of Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad and Deputy Director of Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhavnagar Unit. The said officer Mr. C.G. Rathod took over the charge on 23.04.2022 and as he had reecieved the papers of impugned trap and opined that though the complainant has disclosed that he did not want to proceed with further but the said trap is not disclosed as failed trap. Thereafter, on 20.06.2022, another report was submitted to the Director of ACB by the same officer stating that considering the transcript of conversation of the petitioner with respondent No.3 - complainant, intention of petitioner - accused is clearly revealed and he had made an attempt to receive illegal gratification and for that investigation is Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined required to be opened to unearth the truth and requested the higher-up to accord sanction.
[6.4] Pursuant thereto, on 23.09.2022, permission is given to investigate the impugned complaint and pursuant to the said report, voice spectrography test of the complainant was conducted and transcript of convestation was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report of FSL was awaited and then received in July, 2024 and it was confirmed that the transcript contained voice of the complainant - respondent No.3 herein and it was supported by the transcript and conversation mentioned in the complaint and in the panchnama. Hence, on 09.09.2024, notice was issued to the present petitioner calling upon him to provide his voice sample but the petitioner replied to the notice stating that he was not willing to provide his voice sample. Hence, the concerned Investigating Officer approached the concerned Court and learned Sessions Judge has passed an order dated 30.07.2025 directing the petitioner - accused to provide the voice sample. Thus, investigation is in progress and is at nascent stage and in progress.
[6.5] Herein, the petitioner is facing charge under Section 7A of the PC Act. Section 7A of the PC Act reads thus:
"7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence.- Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
Thus, the 'demand' itself is a cognizable offence under Section 7A of the PC Act.
[6.6] So far as allegation of delay in lodging the impugned FIR is concerned, it is needless to say delay in lodging an FIR is not the only criteria to quash and set aside the impugned FIR as preliminary enquiry is permissible in such offences regsitered under the PC Act. Herein, it appears that due to administrative reasons in getting sanction or approval for opening inquiry after getting the report from the FSL, which does not amount to delay in registering the impugned FIR, which is registered on 09.07.2025. Hence, there is no any delay in lodging of the impugned FIR and even otherwise, merely delay in lodging of FIR is not a ground to quash and set aside the complaint that too in such serious offence registered under the PC Act, wherein demand of illegal gratification has been clearly made out. Pursuant to the demand, on 31.01.2022, trap proceeding was initiated and panch witnesses were arranged and everything is on record but subsequently for the reasons best known to the Trapping Officer or due to any reason or knowledge of petitioner - accused, he remained conscious and not uttered a word.
[6.7] Further perusing the conversation, it appears that the petitioner has stated in clear terms to the complainant to part Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined with amount of illegal gratification to one Lalabhai and he will meet at Kishan Agro and in the said conversation also, in presence of panch witnesses, demand was made and when the Trapping Officer had asked the complainant as to who is Lalabhai, the complainant had stated that Lalabhai is friend of his elder brother and if he parts with such illegal gratification to Lalabhai, it may create family problem. Due to this reason, he has refused to do so. The said conversation is recorded in panchnama which is signed by the same I/c. Police Inspector in presence of two panch witnesses though second statement dated 31.01.2022 prima facie clearly appears to be an eye- wash. Hence, thorough investigation is required as twice demand is confirmed which is also supported by scientific evidence in presence of two panch witnesses.
[6.8] So far as the 'demand' is concerned, the complaint is registered after preliminary inquiry and it was found that there is a substance in the allegation but subsequently respondent No.3 receded to further proceeding with the trap and due to this reason it happened but the fact remains that, to make an "attempt" of demanding illegal gratification as a public servant itself is an offence. Herein, it clearly reveals from the bare perusal of the complaint that petitioner made a 'demand' to receive the illegal gratification but anyhow it did not work out which does not mean no offence is committed and is nothing but a criminal misconduct. The petitioner has raised all contentions whatever available to him however, same are disputed questions of fact and cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. In this regard, decision of the Privy Council in the case of Emperor vs. Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined Khwaja Nazir Ahmed is required to be referred to, wherein it has been observed that in India, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities. It is further observed that it would be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It is further observed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function.
[6.9] Even otherwise, quashing of FIR at investigation stage is not permissible and for that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Chhatisgarh and Another vs. Aman Kumar Singh and Others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 559 has laid down as to what approach should be adopted while considering petition for quashing of FIR under the PC Act. In the said decision it is observed that though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly 'corruption'. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now limited to the spheres of activities of governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of one's life. Indeed, it is a matter of disgrace for the entire community that not only on the one hand is there a steady decline in steadfastly pursuing Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined the lofty ideals which the founding fathers of our Constitution had in mind, degradation of moral values in society is rapidly on the rise on the other. Not much debate is required to trace the root of corruption.
[6.10] Further, while deciding the challenge to the FIR, the High Court should bear in mind the note of caution in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; further that, the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint; and also that, the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. It seems that such note of caution did not have the desired effect in all cases re- emphasizing the need for the High Court to bear in mind the settled principle of law that whenever its powers are invoked either under Article 226 of the Constitution or section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing a first information report/complaint, the Courts would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. In this regard, reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Court while dealing with a case under the P.C. Act in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri reported in (1996) 1 SCC 542 would be profitable. Thus, to maintain probity in the system of governance as well as to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it would be eminently desirable if a hands-off approach is maintained and Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined not quash a first information report pertaining to "corruption" cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a PC Act offence. Majorly, the proper course for this Court would be to follow, in cases under the PC Act, would be to permit the investigation to be taken to its logical conclusion and leave the aggrieved party to pursue the remedy made available by law at an appropriate stage. If at all interference in any case is considered necessary, the same should rest on the very special features of the case.
[7.0] Hence, alleged delay in lodging of the FIR is not a ground for quashing of proceedings but in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. In case of delay with attending circumstances coming forth on the record of the case, Court has to consider the allegations and if considering the entire case put up by the prosecution is inherently improbable then delay may become a good ground to quash the said proceedings.
Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined [7.1] Herein, considering the attending circumstances emerging from the record, it transpires that, prosecution has filed the impugned FIR belatedly with any ulterior motive and therefore, nothing reveals from the impugned FIR that there was any malafide on the part of the Investigating Officer being someone is able to manage or manipulate the investigation and failed to discharge his duty honestly and any lethargy on the part of Trapping Officer i.e. I/c. Police Inspector Mr. Vaghela. It does not mean that the offence is not committed and any wrong on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the argument canvassed by learned Counsel for the petitioner that FIR is filed belatedly and therefore, same is required to be quashed and set aside is not sustainable.
[8.0] Herein, the investigation is at nascent stage. It is profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab reported in (2025)4 SCC 493, wherein in paragraphs 12, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:
"12. Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms.
25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.
26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.
27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 & held as under:--
"16......'26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court held as under:--
"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption...."(Emphasis supplied)
29. In K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, this Court observed thus:--
"12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impededfrom gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity...."
(Emphasis supplied)"
As is evident from the above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, to ensure corruption free society, Court should give free hand to the investigating agency and thorough and proper investigation is required.
[9.0] Another argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner about double jeopardy is concerned, this is not a case wherein, the petitioner already tried and once again he implicated in the same offence. Hence, argument canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner that if investigation is allowed to continue in connection with impugned FIR, it would amount to double jeopardy to the petitioner is not acceptable, but it is needless to say that merely grant of anticipatory bail is not a ground to quash the proceedings.
[10.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 warranting the exercise of jurisdiction Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10266/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined under Section 528 of the BNSS (section 482 of the CrPC) vis-à-vis the quashing of impugned FIR. Further, the Court will not be justified in embarking upon any enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness / otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and also that, the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice.
[11.0] Hence, present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.
[12.0] It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and only for the purpose of deciding present petition and shall not have any bearing on the merits of the pending proceedings.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:11:20 IST 2025