Rajendra Bhanuprasad Yagnik vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 5960 Guj

    R/SCR.A/1181/2013                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1181 of 2013

                              With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of
                              2015
        In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1181 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
      judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                           No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment No
      ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
      interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
      thereunder ?

========================================================
                  RAJENDRA BHANUPRASAD YAGNIK & 1 other(s)
                                  Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAURIN SHAH FOR MR AD SHAH(733) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                   Date : 06/07/2022

                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Saurin Shah for learned Advocate

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

Mr.A.D. Shah on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.1- State

and learned Advocate Mr. Virat Popat on behalf of respondent no.2-

original complainant.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of

FIR being C.R. No. I- 1 of 2013 registered with CID (Crime),

Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for offences punishable under

Sections 217, 218, 219, 221, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 7,

13(1)(a)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C.Act').

3. Facts leading to filing of the present petition are briefly narrated as

hereinbelow:

The first informant had filed an FIR, being C.R. No. I- 204 of

2009 with Deesa Rural Police Station, District: Banaskantha against

four accused inter alia alleging offences punishable under Sections

193, 196, 209, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal

Code. The said FIR being filed inter alia alleging that forged

agreement to sale ( Banakhat) had been produced in a Special Civil

Suit No. 29 of 2008 filed by the accused of the FIR referred to

hereinabove, with regard to purchase of land of the first informant in

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

question. It appears that the investigation of the complaint was

transferred to the Police Inspector, LCB, Palanpur, District:

Banaskantha by the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner no. 1

herein being the Police Inspector, LCB at the relevant point of time.

It appears that since the first informant was not satisfied with

the investigation, he had preferred a petition before this Court being

Special Criminal Application No. 1818 of 2010 praying for transfer of

the investigation. That learned Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court( Justice M.R. Shah, as he then was), had recorded the

statement of learned APP that since original papers were lying with

the Civil Court in the civil proceedings, there was delay in

investigation and whereas such papers, would be received by the

Investigating` Officer within a few days from the Civil Court. It

appears that based upon such a statement learned Co-ordinate Bench

had been pleased to dispose of the said petition with a direction to

the Investigating Officer to complete and conclude the investigation

expeditiously and charge-sheet was directed to be filed on or before

28.02.2011. Liberty was also reserved in favour of the petitioner

therein to initiate appropriate proceedings if he was not satisfied with

the investigation. It appears that after the order of this Court, the

Investigating Officer had got custody of the Agreement to Sale

(Banakhat) in dispute on 28.01.2011 and whereas the same was

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their opinion. It

further appears that the main accused had been arrested by the Surat

Police and the custody was also handed over to the LCB,

Banaskantha.

It further appears that in the interregnum the petitioner had

also approached the office of the Chief Minister, State of Gujarat

through the Swagat Programme making allegation that the

investigation is not being carried out properly. It further appears that

on 13.04.2011, the respondent no.2- first informant made an

application to the Superintendent of Police, inter alia requesting for

addition of offence punishable under Sections 467 of Indian Penal

Code. It appears that the Superintendent of Police had directed the

petitioner to expedite the investigation more particularly observing

that the first informant was continuously making allegations that the

investigation is not carried out, properly. It further appears that in

connection with such direction from the Superintendent of Police,

the statement of the first informant was recorded on 21.04.2011 by

the petitioner herein and it also appears that in view of the

continuous allegations being made against the Police Department,

the statement of the petitioner, when it was being recorded, was also

videographed. The petitioner no.1 had filed the charge-sheet before

the learned Trial Court on 21.07.2011 and whereas in the charge-

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

sheet, the accused no. 2, 3 and 4 were shown as witnesses. The first

informant had thereupon, submitted a complaint against the present

petitioners in the Swagat Programme more particularly alleging that

the petitioners had shown accused no. 2 to 4 therein as witnesses for

an ulterior motive of financial gain. It further appears that the first

informant had thereafter preferred an application before the learned

Sessions Court, Deesa, for cancelling the bail granted to the accused

no.1 such application being made on 01.10.2011.

It appears that thereafter for the first time the first informant

on 04.10.2011 had submitted another complaint in the Swagat

Programme inter alia alleging that the petitioners had sought for a

bribe of Rs. 35 lacs for carrying out the investigation properly and it

is further alleged that since the first informant had not given the said

amount, the accused no. 2 to 4 were shown as witnesses.

It appears that there were certain events that had taken place in

the interregnum which would be referred to this Court at a later stage

and whereas it would be relevant to mention that the first informant

had thereafter filed the complaint impugned before the Gandhinagar

Zone Police Station on 08.01.2013. The complaint inter alia alleged

that the petitioners had demanded a sum of Rs. 35 lacs and if the

demand was not satisfied then they were threatened that the

remaining three accused would be shown as witnesses and they will

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

turn hostile during trial. The said demand being rejected by the first

informant, the petitioners in their charge-sheet, had shown accused

no. 2 to 4 as witnesses.

It also appears that vide a detailed order dated 02.07.2013 in

the present matter, while the investigation was permitted to be carried

out, it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the

petitioners. It appears that after the said order, the investigation had

not been carried out any further.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Saurin Shah assails the impugned FIR

by submitting that the impugned FIR was an act of the first

informant attempting to spite the petitioners, on account of the

grudge held by him as the charge-sheet had shown the accused no. 2,

3 and 4 as witnesses. Learned Advocate would further submit that as

such the allegations made in the FIR are absurd and improbable and

whereas on such grounds it is requested that this Court may quash

the impugned FIR. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would elaborate by

submitting that the first informant was an extremely vigilant citizen.

Learned Advocate would submit that the extent of the vigilance of

the first informant, would be clear from the fact that the first

informant had after filing of the original complaint i.e. C.R. No. I-

204 of 2009, since according to him the investigation was not being

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

carried out properly, he had taken all possible steps, to ensure that

either the investigation is transferred or it is carried out properly, to

his satisfaction. Learned Advocate would submit that as noted

hereinabove, the first informant had approached this Court, by

preferring Special Criminal Application No. 1818 of 2010 within a

year of filing of the said complaint, for transfer of the investigation.

That apart from the same, the first informant had also submitted an

application on 01.12.2010 to the Deputy Collector, for initiation of

proceedings under the Preventive Detention Act against the principal

accused. The first informant had thereafter submitted an application

for invoking Section 467 of Indian Penal Code to the Superintendent

of Police concerned. The first informant had also approached the

office of the Chief Minister through the Swagat Programme inter alia

complaining about the alleged laxity in the investigation. Learned

Advocate would submit that having taken such steps, even prior to

filing of the charge-sheet, it could not be believed that if the

petitioners had made an unlawful demand from the first informant

then the first informant would not have taken any immediate action

thereupon.

4.1. Learned Advocate would submit that as such while the first

informant was making general allegations as regards laxity in the

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

investigation, till the charge-sheet was filed, the first informant had

not made any specific allegation against the present petitioners. It is

submitted by the learned Advocate that after the charge-sheet had

been filed on 21.07.2011, more particularly accused no. 2 to 4 being

joined as witnesses that the first informant had started making

allegations against the petitioners. Learned Advocate would submit

that as such even after the charge-sheet had been filed, the first

informant had initially submitted an application against the petitioners

in the Swagat Programme i.e. to the office of the Chief Minister,

where the allegation was that the petitioners might have filed charge-

sheet by showing accused nos. 2 to 4 as witnesses for an oblique

motive i.e for financial gain. Learned Advocate would emphasize that

in the said application the first informant had not stated that the

petitioners had sought for any bribe from the first informant. It also

appears that the first informant had preferred an application before

the learned Sessions Court for cancellation of bail granted to the

accused no.1 and whereas even in the said application no such

allegations were levelled. Learned Advocate would submit that for the

first time the first informant had made the allegation of the

petitioners having sought for bribe in a complaint to the office of the

Chief Minister in the Swagat Programme on 04.10.2011.

 R/SCR.A/1181/2013                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022



    4.2      Learned Advocate would submit that as such even after the

application by the first informant, it is not as if that the impugned

FIR had been filed without any verification of the allegation. Learned

Advocate would submit that at the first instance, vide a

communication dated 12.12.2011, the Superintendent of Police,

Banaskantha, in response to the complaint made by the first

informant in the Swagat Programme by the office of the Chief

Minister dated 06.08. 2011 inter alia informed the office of the Chief

Minister that the allegations against the petitioners of having received

bribe from the accused persons, was baseless. It further appears that

in response to another complaint made in the Swagat Programme on

14.12.2011 inter alia against the petitioners, again the issue had been

inquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha and

whereas the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha had submitted a

detailed report to the office of the Chief Minister and whereas it was

inter alia mentioned in the report that the first informant was prone

to making baseless allegations with regard to the investigation. Later

on it appears that the Superintendent of Police vide an order dated

07.06.2012 had constituted a Committee of three officers more

particularly in light of another complaint of the first informant

through the Swagat Programme, more particularly for initiating

proceedings for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Advocate would submit that

the Committee had submitted its report to the Superintendent of

Police on 29.06.2012 and whereas while the Committee has inter alia

found lapses in the investigation by the petitioners but what would

be relevant to note that the very same Committee has also held that

the allegation of the petitioners having sought for bribe does not

appear to be reasonable. Furthermore, it is also mentioned that the

first informant has not made any specific allegation as to when and at

what time and in whose presence the petitioners had sought for bribe

and whereas according to the report very general allegations with

regard to seeking of bribe appears to have been made, which

according to the Committee was baseless. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah

would further submit that even later on, upon the complaint of the

first informant to the Director General of Police, a report had been

submitted by the Superintendent of Police where also the

Superintendent of Police clearly opined that while there may be some

lapses in the investigation but as far as the allegation of seeking bribe

are concerned, the same appeared to be baseless. Learned Advocate

would submit that very surprisingly while the report had been

submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha on

02.11.2012 to the Director General of Police, Gujarat State, yet

approximately within a month thereafter, the impugned FIR had been

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

filed. Learned Advocate would submit in this regard that even after

the first informant had submitted a complaint to the office of the

Chief Minister, atleast thrice the allegations had been inquired

into/investigated and in all three occasions, it appears that the report

giving authority had clearly opined that the allegation of having

sought for bribe appears to be baseless. Learned Advocate would

further submit in this regard that there is also a clear inconsistency in

the stand taken by the first informant inasmuch after the charge-sheet

was filed, in his first complaint to the office of the Chief Minister, the

first informant had alleged that the petitioners may have sought for

financial benefits from the accused. Learned Advocate would submit

that even that aspect had been inquired into and the allegation was

found to be baseless. Learned Advocate would submit that later on,

that for the first time, the first informant had changed his stand and

alleged that the petitioners have themselves sought for bribe from the

first informant and since the first informant did not accede to the

same, the charge-sheet had been filed containing names of accused

no. 2 to 4 as witnesses. Learned Advocate would submit that having

regard to the fact that the first informant was a vigilant citizen and

having regard to the fact that the first informant had not made any

complaint about such a serious allegation before the charge-sheet was

filed and the first informant even after the charge-sheet being filed

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

having first made an allegation that the petitioners might have

received bribe from the accused, had later on changed the stand to

allege that the petitioners had sought for bribe from the first

informant himself. Learned Advocate would submit that the facts

noted hereinabove would show that the allegations in the FIR are

inherently improbable and it clearly appears that the FIR was

preferred with a view spite the petitioners on account of the grudge

hold by the first informant since accused no. 2 to 4 were shown as

witnesses in the charge-sheet. Thus submitting learned Advocate Mr.

Shah would request this Court to quash the impugned FIR .

5.0 Learned APP Ms. Mehta has vehemently opposed this petition.

Learned APP would submit that a very serious allegation has been

made by the first informant against the police officers who were

investigating into an earlier complaint filed by him. Learned Advocate

would submit that such complaints having been made consistently,

some inconsistencies, may not ennure in favour of the petitioners,

more particularly learned APP submitting that investigation may be

permitted to be continued by this Court.

6.0 This petition is vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr.

Virat Popat who would submit that a plain reading of the FIR makes

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

it clear that there are allegations of cognizable offence being made out

against the petitioners. Learned Advocate would submit that the

allegations also are quite serious, more particularly since the same

relate to seeking of a bribe by Police Officers to influence the

investigation. Learned Advocate would submit that having regard to

the same, some inconsistencies here or there, may not be taken into

consideration by this Court to interfere with the complaint.

6.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Popat would further rely upon Section

19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and whereas learned

Advocate would submit that the said section inter alia prohibits the

High Court from interfering in issues where the allegations are under

the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Advocate Mr. Popat in

support of his submissions would rely upon decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in case of Satya Narayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan

reported in 2001(8) SCC 607. Learned Advocate Mr. Popat would

also fairly submit that insofar as the first FIR is concerned, the parties

therein i.e. the first informant herein and the accused therein have

amicably settled the issue and whereas on basis of such settlement,

the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to

quash the FIR.

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

7. Heard learned Advocates for the parties who have not

submitted anything else.

8. At the outset, since learned Advocate for the first informant

has raised a contention with regard to Section 19 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, more particularly with regard to the jurisdiction of

this Court, to interfere in the proceedings under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, the said submission requires to be dealt with.

8.1 Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, states with

regard to previous sanction being necessary for prosecution and

whereas it appears that the learned Advocate is relying upon Section

19(3)(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to submit that

proceedings under this Act may not be stayed by any Court, more

particularly in exercise of powers under the Code of Criminal

Procedure. It would be pertinent to mention here that the bar, of

Section 19(3)(c) is with regard to stay of proceedings, under the

Prevention of Corruption Act and whereas the said Section also bars

exercise of powers of revision in relation to interlocutory order

passed in any inquiry by appeal or other proceedings under the

Prevention of Corruption Act. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the said section cannot be read to mean that it would even bar

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. As a matter of fact even the decision

referred to by learned Advocate Mr. Popat, does not say so rather

the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the aspect at paragraph no. 17

by observing that while there cannot be any stay of trial under the

Prevention of Corruption Act but at the same time the Hon'ble Apex

Court had also clarified by observing that the Hon'ble Apex Court is

not stating that proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure cannot be adapted to. The Hon'ble Court

further observes that in appropriate cases proceedings under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be adopted but then

merely because the Court concerned is not in a position to take up

the petition for hearing would be no ground for staying the trial even

temporarily. In the considered opinion of this Court while the

Hon'ble Apex Court was observing in context of a situation where

the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act was

challenged but at the same time, in the considered opinion of this

Court, even the Hon'ble Apex Court had clarified that in appropriate

cases exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure while this Court could interfere with proceedings under

the Prevention of Corruption Act but what was prohibited was stay

of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court such an observation,

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

cannot be read to mean that Section 19 (3)(c) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, impose the embargo upon exercise of inherent

powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, even when the proceeding under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, are at the stage of the FIR and had not proceeded

further. Thus the submission on behalf of learned Advocate Mr.

Popat for the respondents cannot be countenanced and the same is

rejected.

9. Insofar as the principal contention is concerned, this Court

finds substance in the submission made by learned Advocate for the

petitioner. It appears that the first informant, was a very vigilant

citizen inasmuch, the first informant before the charge-sheet had

been filed had approached this Court for transfer of investigation,

had approached the office of the Chief Minister for complaining

about the laxity in the investigation, had approached the

Superintendent of Police for addition of sections, etc. It would be

rather improbable to prima facie believe that the first informant, if

any bribe had been sought from him would not have filed a

complaint at that stage itself rather than wait for the investigation by

the petitioners to conclude.

 R/SCR.A/1181/2013                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022



    9.1      It would also be relevant to mention here that the allegation of

the first informant was that the petitioners had sought for the bribe

to ensure that accused no. 2, 3 and 4 of the first FIR preferred by the

first informant, are joined as accused and not as witnesses. Such a

demand, obviously being made prior to filing of the charge-sheet. In

the considered opinion of this Court, even the fact of the first

informant being a very vigilant citizen, it could not be believed that

upon such an illegal demand being made from the first informant, he

would not have complained about the same to any authority. The

fact that the first informant could approach this Court, for transfer

of investigation, and according to the first informant bribe had been

sought to ensure that the investigation is not delayed, then the first

informant not acting immediately with regard to the same, leads to a

clear inference that the allegation by the first informant is inherently

improbable.

10. On the other hand it also requires to be appreciated that after

the charge-sheet was filed, immediately thereupon i.e the charge-sheet

being filed on 21.07.2011 and within 15 days, the first informant on

06.08.2011 had submitted a complaint against the petitioners herein

to the office of the Chief Minister through the Swagat Programme

and whereas in the said complaint the allegation of the first

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

informant, is completely contrary to the allegation made in the FIR.

In the said complaint, the first informant alleges that the petitioners

had joined the accused no. 2 to 4 as witnesses in the charge-sheet in

the first complaint, for receiving undue benefit from the accused in

the nature of financial gain. Thus, even at the first instance, the first

informant does not allege that the petitioners had sought for any

bribe from the first informant rather the allegation being that the

petitioners might have received some bribe from the accused for

joining the accused no. 2 to 4 of the first FIR as witnesses in the

charge-sheet. It is later on, i.e approximately two and half months

after the charge-sheet was filed and approximately two months after

the complaint to the office of the Chief Minister on 06.08.2011 that

the first informant on 04.10.2011, submitted another complaint to

the office of the Chief Minister alleging that the petitioners had

sought for bribe from the first informant. In the considered opinion

of this Court, the sequence of events, would clearly reflect the fact

that the complaint by the present first informant, was with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners herein

holding grudge by the first informant against the petitioners since the

petitioners herein, had conducted the investigation, in a manner

different than what was expected from them by the first informant.

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

11. At this stage it would also be relevant to mention that it is not

as if that the complaint had been registered immediately upon the

first informant having made the application against the petitioners.

Rather as noticed hereinabove, it appears that there are three inquiries

conducted after the allegation of the complainant, and whereas it

appears that in the first inquiry by the Superintendent of Police with

regard to the allegation that the petitioners might have received bribe

from the accused of the first FIR, such an allegation was termed as

baseless by the Superintendent of Police in his report to the office of

the Chief Minister. In the later inquiries, the first one being by the

Committee of three officers, formed by the Superintendent of Police,

while the Committee finds that the petitioners had allegedly

committed certain lapses in the investigation but at the same time, it

also appears that the Committee had emphatically rejected the

allegation by the first informant more particularly according to the

Committee, the allegation is very general in nature and whereas no

specific details have been provided by the complainant. It further

appears that even approximately one and half months prior to filing

of this FIR, the Superintendent of Police had submitted a report to

the Director General of Police where also, the Superintendent of

Police had emphatically rejected the allegation against the petitioners

of having sought for a bribe. Thus it clearly appears that after the

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

allegations had been levelled against the petitioners herein, apart

from the fact of the allegations being in the considered opinion of

this Court, inherently improbable and an act of wreaking vengeance,

it also appears that there was no material, gathered by the Senior

Officers, who had inquired into such allegations.

12. Having regard to the above observations, at this stage, this

Court seeks to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case

of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, paragraph no. 102 of the said decision, being

the relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:

"102. 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 extraordinary power under Article 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 a 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 in the first information report and

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

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 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 noncognizable 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 proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

12.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, has inter alia provided instances where extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

Procedure could be exercised by this Court for quashing of the complaint, either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

12.2 In the considered opinion of this Court, instances no. (5) and (7), would be applicable in the present case. Instance no. (5) inter alia stating about the allegations in the FIR being absurd and inherently improbable on basis of which no prudent person could reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused, would be squarely applicable to the fact of this case. As noted hereinabove, the first informant who was an extremely vigilant person, who had initiated all possible proceedings, against the alleged laxity of investigation, including approaching this Court, having not complained immediately upon an illegal demand being made, leads to clear a conclusion that the allegation by the first informant is inherently improbable.

12.3. Furthermore, it also requires to be noted that while before the charge-sheet, the allegations were general in nature i.e. with regard to laxity of investigation, upon which the charge-sheet being filed and the accused no. 2 to 4 of the first FIR, being shown as witnesses in the charge-sheet, the first informant being aggrieved on account of the same, with a view to wreak vengeance on the accused had maliciously instituted the impugned FIR, as covered by instance no.7.

13. As noted hereinabove, the inherent improbability of the allegation and the vindictive nature of the impugned FIR are fortified on account of the fact that even after the charge sheet, at the first instance in his complaint to the office of the Chief Minister, the first

R/SCR.A/1181/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2022

informant alleges that the petitioners might have received some bribe from the accused and whereas approximately two and half months thereafter, the first informant changes his stand and alleges that the petitioners had sought for bribe from the complainant.

14. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court, the present is case for exercising of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the impugned FIR to prevent abuse of process process of law.

15. In this view of the matter, the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I- 1 of 2013 registered with CID (Crime), Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 219, 221, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. . Rule is made absolute.

16. In view of the order passed in Special Criminal Application No. 1181 of 2013, Criminal Misc. Application (For Vacating Interim Relief ) No. 1 of 2015 stands disposed of.

'

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU