[2025:RJ-JP:46895] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6678/2025 Ghanshyam Tiwari S/o Shee Ramjilal Tiwari, aged about 70 years, resident of 17, Rathor Marg, Nya Khera, Ambabadi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus C.B.I. Jaipur through Special Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma with Mr. Bhagat Singh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/11/2025 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking quashing of Criminal Case No.20/2014 titled as C.B.I., Jaipur Vs. Anand Sagar Mehta & Ors. pending against the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge (C.B.I.) No.1, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the fact that the petitioner went to United States, where he met with an accident, he could not join the trial and in the meanwhile, the other co-accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2018. Therefore, under these circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to prosecute the petitioner in a criminal proceedings, which has resulted in acquittal of other co-accused. [2025:RJ-JP:46895] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6678/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the alternative that even otherwise, he is inclined to join trial proceedings, yet for the reason that red corner notice has been issued against him and the proceedings by declaring him absconder are also under process, he is under apprehension that in case, he comes to India, he will be arrested by the authorities. Therefore, the arrest warrant which was issued by the learned trial Court may be converted in bailable warrant. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for C.B.I. submits that conduct of the petitioner does not make him entitled for any relief whatsoever as he is absconding since 2014 and has never co-operated in the trial proceedings. Even, the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court in respect of other co-accused, observed that specific charge relating to fabrication of foreign purchase order has been framed against the petitioner, but since he is absconding, therefore, no judgment is being rendered against him. 5. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in the cases, where a person is violating the process of law and even red corner notice has been issued by the Competent Authority, no relief of quashing of proceedings can be granted, more particularly, when bare perusal of the material on record would not make out a case that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not even prima facie made out. There is ample evidence already on record to show that the petitioner has committed offence as alleged against him for which charge has also been framed by the learned trial Court but only on account of his absconding, the trial could not be concluded. [2025:RJ-JP:46895] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6678/2025] 6. It is further submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that so far as arrest warrant is concerned, no relief can be granted in favour of the person, who has been absconding for last 11 years and more particularly when he is trying to take benefit of the judgment delivered in the case of co-accused, which was also delivered by the learned trial Court long back in the year 2018, therefore, filing this criminal miscellaneous petition after expiry of 7 years also shows that the intention of the petitioner is not bona fide, hence, he prayed for dismissing the present petition. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also relies upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Moosa Vs. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 605 decided on 23.12.2005. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the instant petition as there is nothing on record to show that the criminal proceedings which are being prosecuted against the petitioner are either frivolous or prohibited by law or even by perusal of the initial complaint/FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner. Hence, looking to the limited scope of exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as well as the guidelines 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, no case for quashing further proceedings is made out. 9. In the case of Moosa (supra), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held as under: [2025:RJ-JP:46895] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6678/2025] "(vii) The judgment of acquittal of a co-accused in a criminal trial is not admissible under Ss. 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act to bar the subsequent trial of the absconding co-accused and cannot hence be reckoned as a relevant document while considering the prayer to quash the proceedings under S. 482 Cr. P.C. Such judgments will be admissible only to show as to who were the parties in the earlier proceedings or the factum of acquittal. (viii) While considering the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary in herent jurisdiction to serve the ends of justice, it is perfectly permissible for the court to consider the bona fides the cleanliness of the hands of the seeker. If he is a fugitive from justice having absconded or jumped bail without sufficient reason or having waited for manipulation of hostility of witnesses, such improper conduct would certainly be a justifiable reason for the court to refuse to invoke its powers under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ix) The fact that the co-accused have secured acquittal in the trial against them in the absence of absconding co-accused cannot by itself be reckoned as a relevant circumstance while considering invocation of the powers under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 10. So far as, the request made by the petitioner with regard to conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant is concerned, in the light of facts and circumstances of the instant case, where for last 11 years, the petitioner is absconding and is also not in the country and as informed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, even the extradition proceedings are also pending against the petitioner, no relief for conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant can be granted. 11. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/12