1 CRM(M) No.115/2023 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.115/2023 Reserved on: 15.07.2025 Pronounced on: 10.09.2025 Yunus Ahmad Bangroo …..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Zamir Abdullah & Mr. Zahir Abdullah, Advocates V/s UT of J&K through P/S ACB ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Sr. AAG for respondent no.1 Mr T. H. Khawja, Advocate for respondents 2&3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 1. Petitioner prays quashing of FIR no.29/2022 dated 18.07.2022 for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in police station Anticorruption Bureau, Kashmir, Srinagar and also the proceedings initiated consequent thereto for commission of aforesaid offences to the extent of petitioner. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the complainants, namely Mohmmad Farooq Bhat and Sajid Hussain in FIR no. 29/2022, appeared before SP, ACB (SBG) by filing written complaints, wherein they alleged that the Naib Tehsildar, namely, Gh. Rasool Hajam and Tehsildar Younas Ahmad Bangroo/ Petitioner herein were demanding bribe from them to the tune of INR. 5,00,000 in order to facilitate the smooth running of their business units which is located on Nazool land 2 CRM(M) No.115/2023 located at Rampura Chattabal, Srinagar measuring 02 kanals and 19 marlas covered under khasra no. 437(min). It was also alleged that, in order to ascertain the alleged allegation, a discreet pre-trap verification to check the veracity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner and the Naib Tehsildar was set up and a trap was laid and some independent witnesses were also sought. Consequently, impugned was registered. After completing the pre-trap formalities, the team along with the complainant and independent witness proceeded towards the spot, i.e., Bemina Crossing. On reaching the spot, one of the accused, namely, Gh. Rasool Hajam (NT) boarded the vehicle towards Tehsil Office Shalteng located at Bemina Bye-pass and demanded the bribe money from the complainant and he handed over the bribe money to him in front of the independent witnesses, who flashed pre-existing signals towards the trap team, whereafter the NT tried to flee from the spot. The ACB team members, who were following the complainant, swung into action and after chasing the NT caught hold of him by wrists near Firdous Colony Bemina near Bismillah Masjid opposite Directorate of Aysuh J&K Srinagar. Upon personal and search of the accused, INR. 2,00,000 were recovered from him and necessary search memos were prepared and upon his arrest an arrest memo was drafted. It is also alleged that the ACB team proceeded towards the office of Tehsildar, Shalteng, namely, Younis Ahmad Bangroo/ Petitioner herein and from his office the occasion file was recovered and seized on spot and the arrest of the Tehsildar was made as well. Both the NT and the Petitioner, were arrested. It is contended that during the course of investigation, it has been established that the accused-Gh. Rasool 3 CRM(M) No.115/2023 Hajam demanded accepted tie bribe money from the complainant as was toid by Tehsildar concerned, namely, Younus Ahmad Bangroo/ Petitioner herein and got the bribe money collected from the complainants as 1" instalment. 3. The grounds of challenge taken in the instant petition are that perusal of the complaint and FIR does not disclose any act of the petitioner or his participation is commission of the alleged crime and in this regard, he has sought to rely on the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and Other, 1992 Suppl. (1) 335; that allegations levelled against petitioner are baseless, arbitrary and without an iota of truth in them; that all the charges alleged against petitioner are whimsical and capricious and that name of petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as Mohammad Yunus Bangroo instead of Younus Ahmad Bangroo; that FIR has been registered on account of evil intention of complainants as they did not want the Petitioner to proceed under the orders of the Division bench judgment of this Court; that petitioner has strong reasons to believe that the complainants were apprehensive of the steps being taken by the Department for retrieval of their land illegally transferred under the Roshni Act and accordingly, the complainants appear to have hatched a conspiracy against him when he did not listen to their illegal demands; that conduct of the complainant would indicate that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on him and with a view to spite him due to private grudge and in this regard, the Petitioner has sought to rely on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka 4 CRM(M) No.115/2023 v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699; that the act and conduct of the officials are indicative of the fact that the criminal proceedings have been instituted maliciously; that on 18.07.2022, while the petitioner was performing his duties as usual in his office, some officials from the ACB entered his office and informed him that one Naib Tehsildar, namely, Ghulam Rasool Hajam, has been arrested and, for identification, he was asked to accompany the said men which he did being a law abiding officer; that thereafter, in the evening of the same day, the petitioner too was informed that he was to be arrested for reasons not known to him; that accordingly, he was also arrested without there being any rhyme or reason; that the petitioner was, thereafter, granted bail by the court Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar on 28.07.2022 and, upon his release on bail, he came to know that he has been placed under suspension by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar, which was subsequently confirmed by order dated 03.11.2022; that it is trite law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to be exercised where judicial process is converted into an instrument of operation or harassment and reliance has been placed to Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369; that none of the ingredients of Section 7 P.C. Act read with 120-B IPC is present as against the petitioner in the impugned FIR; that in absence of any of the ingredients of these section being present or coming forth from the allegations against the petitioner in the impugned FIR, the registration of the FIR impugned against the petitioner is highly uncalled for and is wholly vitiated; that the impugned FIR is being used as a tool of 5 CRM(M) No.115/2023 harassing and victimizing the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner has not been involved in any offence muchless the offences punishable under aforesaid sections; that the respondent has registered the FIR by abusing his official position which is quite apparent and evident from the perusal of the FIR impugned. 4. Respondents have filed the status report, wherein it is stated that on 13.07.2022, complainants, namely, Mr. Farooq Ahmad and Mr. Sajid Hussain approached police station ACB Srinagar and reported that they were running their business units at Rampora Chattabal Srinagar on Nazool land since 2014. The respective piece of land under their possession was registered in the names of their parents duly mutated as per the provisions of Roshni Act, and a case in this regard was also sub judice before the Court. They alleged that Tehsildar Mohammad Younis and Naib-Tehsildar Ghulam Rasool repeatedly visited their business units and harassed/ threatened them that their business units would be sealed as both the units were on Nazool Land. Further they were being told to pay Rs.5.00 Lacs to them (Tehsildar and Naib- Tehsildar) as bribe etc. Before registering a formal case, Inspector Firdous Ahmad of ACB Srinagar was asked to conduct pre-verification to test the veracity of the complaint. To ascertain the facts, the complainant, Mr. Farooq, was asked to call on the cell number of Naib- Tehsildar and keep the phone on loudspeaker mode which he did and Naib-Tehsildar during the conversation asked the complainant Mr.Farooq Ahmad to attend the office of Tehsildar Shalteng (Central Srinagar) located at Bye pass Bemina at around 14:00 hours. In the meantime, verifying officer (VO) took a recorder from I/C Technical 6 CRM(M) No.115/2023 Lab of ACB and left the office along with the complainants and reached at the office of Tehsildar Shalteng. The recorder was switched on and kept in the pocket of complainant Farooq Ahmad who along with the other complainant went inside the office of Tehsildar Shalteng while as verifying officer waited outside the office for about 45 Minutes. As soon as the complainants came out of the office of Tehsildar Shalteng, the recorder was collected back and switched off. The complainants informed that Tehsildar Shalteng Mr. Younis Bangroo and Naib Tehsildar Gh. Rasool Hajam heard them in the office and applicants requested them to issue notice under relevant rules to them so that they can approach the relevant forum for appeal/stay as the matter of Roshni Act is Sub-Judice. However, Tehsildar directed them to accompany Naib-Tehsildar Ghulam Rasool who will make them understand the issue, accordingly they went with the Naib Tehsildar who demanded Rs.5.00 Lacs as bribe from them to avoid closure of their Business Units. The conversation recorded in the recorder is corroborative. The verifying officer, as asked, remained in touch with the complainants and on 14.07.2022, the complainants informed verifying officer on phone that Naib-Tehsildar has asked him to arrange the bribe money quickly otherwise their shops would be shut. On 16.07.2022 at about 10.00 hours, the complainant Mr. Farooq Ahmad informed verifying officer that both the applicants have arranged Rs.1.00 Lac (Fifty thousand each). In order to be satisfied that the demand is made by the accused public servants, Mr. Farooq Ahmad was again asked to call the suspect; Naib-Tehsildar Batamallo on his Cell phone who informed him that he will come to his office chamber (shop of Mr. Farooq 7 CRM(M) No.115/2023 Ahmad) between 3 PM to 6 PM. Accordingly, verifying officer waited outside the shop of Mr. Farooq Ahmad; M/S Modish constructions while as HC Showkat Hussain 168/KGM who was accompanying verifying officer and associated with the verification was asked to remain inside the office of the complainant as a customer and make every effort to hear/listen to the conversation between the suspects and the applicant. In the meantime, at about 6 PM, the suspect; Naib- Tehsildar Batamallo Gh Rasool Hajam arrived in an official Vehicle Bolero bearing Registration No: JK01AL-8206 actually attached with Tehsildar Mr. Younis Bangroo, at the spot and entered into the shop of complainant, wherein the Naib-Tehsildar refused to settle down with Rs.1.00 Lac and insisted to arrange, at least, Rs.2.00 Lacs as first instalment by Monday 18th July. The suspect, Naib-Tehsildar, Gh Rasool also asked Mr. Farooq Ahmad to call him early in the morning on Monday 18th July, so that after conversing with Tehsildar Shalteng, they can fix the spot for accepting the bribe money. The conversation was witnessed/heard by HC Showkat Hussain 168/KGM also. Accordingly, after being fully satisfied that prima-facie demand of bribe by the suspect Public Servants is made out and the contention of the complainants is corroborated, a formal case FIR No.29/2022 in PS ACB Srinagar was registered in the matter on 18.07.2022 on the basis of a written complaint moved by the complainants Mohammad Farooq Bhat S/O Ghulam Mohammad Bhat RO Bemina and Sajid Hussain Mir S/O Ghulam Qadir Mir R/O Nabdipora Hawal Srinagar. Investigation of the case was entrusted to Dy. S.P. Rameez Raja. 8 CRM(M) No.115/2023 5. It is also stated by respondent in his status report that during the course of investigation, a trap-team headed by the Trap Laying Officer (TLO/ IO) was constituted and services of an independent witness were utilized. During pre-trap proceedings, complainants after introducing themselves to the trap team members and the independent witness, produced an amount of Rs.2.00 Lacs consisting of four hundred (400) Indian Currency Notes of Rs.500/- denomination (one Lakh each complainant), which were supposed to be given by them to the accused persons on demand. The serial numbers of currency notes so produced by them were noted down and checked by the team members and independent witness. The notes were counted by independent witness when asked by Dy.SP Rameez Raja (TLO/I/O). In order to demonstrate the effect of phenolphthalein powder on the tainted currency notes to establish acceptance of bribe money by the public servants, TLO has instructed SGCT Hilal Ahmad to prepare a solution of Sodium Carbonate and water in a transparent glass tumbler. Accordingly, the said official prepared the solution. Independent witness was asked by TLO to dip his fingers in the said solution and on his doing so, colour of the solution didn't change. Then SGCT Hilal Ahmad was asked by the TLO to smear phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. The said official acted accordingly and dusted all the notes with phenolphthalein powder. Later, the independent witness was asked by TLO to arrange the notes as per the serial numbers already mentioned in Pre-Trap Memo and then asked to place the amount in two front side pockets of Jeans Pant worn by one of the complainants; Sajid Hussain Mir (one lakh in each pocket). The complainant was directed not to 9 CRM(M) No.115/2023 touch these notes till handing them over to the accused only on specific demand. The independent witness was again asked by TLO to dip his fingers in the said solution as he had touched the phenolphthalein dusted currency notes. On his doing so, colour of the solution changed to Pink, which was preserved in a transparent glass bottle and labeled with adhesive and marked as exhibit "A" & same was sealed and seized, and was kept in P/S Malkhana for safe custody for further submission to FSL for examination. All trap team members and independent witness were asked by TLO to wash their hands properly with soap and water in order to remove traces of phenolphthalein, if any, on their person. 6. The respondent also states in his status report that the trap team then proceeded towards the shop of the complainant Mohammad Farooq Bhat in different vehicles where the duo (Tehsildar and Naib-Tehsildar) was supposed to receive the bribe money. Before leaving for the destination, complainant Mohammad Farooq made a phone call to Naib-Tehsildar on his Phone No: 9419052941 who informed him that Tehsildar is busy somewhere and will visit Mohammad Farooq's office after few minutes. Upon reaching shop of Mr. Farooq; M/S Modish Constructions located near Tatoo Ground, Naib-Tehsildar called Mr. Farooq and commanded him to send Sajid Hussain Mir (another complainant) along with bribe money to Bemina Crossing. Mr. Sajid proceeded to the spot in Scorpio vehicle. The trap team members followed him and scattered at different positions to watch the happenings from a distance. Few minutes later, the accused Naib- Tehsildar came from Sabzi-Mandi side and boarded Scorpio near 10 CRM(M) No.115/2023 Bemina crossing. Then Scorpio started moving towards Tehsil Office Shalteng, trap team members including independent witness boarded the vehicles/bikes and were following the Scorpio. The Scorpio Vehicle stopped opposite Tehsil office located on other side of NHW in Firdous Colony Bemina Srinagar near Bismillah Masjid and after a while Gh. Rasool (Naib-Tehsildar) deboarded the Scorpio and started walking towards Firdous Abad via a lane. Complainant, Sajid Hussain Mir, flashed signal (Thumbs-up) to trap team member. ACB Team swung into action and team members Inspector Parvaiz Ahmad, HC Showkat Ahmad & SGCT. Hilal Ahmad post-trap proceedings were held on spot at Firdous Colony near Masjid Bismillah. During post-trap proceedings, a solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared by SGT Aijaz Ahmad and firstly TLO dipped fingers of both his hands in the said solution but its colour remained unchanged. Then accused who disclosed his name as Gulam Rasool Hajjam (Naib-Tehsildar Batmaloo) S/O Abdul Rehman Hajjam R/o Azad Colony Batapora Srinagar dipped fingers of both his hands in the same solution. On his doing so, colour of the solution turned pink. This pink colour solution thus obtained was preserved in a transparent glass bottle, seized and sealed on spot and marked as "B". The search of accused, Ghulam Rasool Hajam (Naib Tehsildar), was conducted and the bribe/tainted money of Rs. Two Lacs was recovered from the right and left side pockets of pant worn by him. The serial numbers of the said recovered tainted money were tallied by independent witness and were found same as recorded earlier during Pre-Trap. To this effect, Post Trap Memo-1 was prepared and signed by witnesses and paper which was 11 CRM(M) No.115/2023 provided to independent witness in which serial numbers were noted was also seized. Further, the site plan of the place of occurrence (Naqsha Mouqa) was prepared on spot. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was conducted thoroughly, during which some items/articles were also recovered and personal search memo to this effect was prepared on spot. The accused Gh. Rasool Hajam “Naib- Tehsildar” was arrested and arrest memo was prepared on spot. While the proceedings were going on, lot of people gathered at the spot, as such, the accused Naib-Tehsildar was taken inside the building of Directorate Ayush J&K Srinagar and seated in meeting hall. On the directions of TLO, the solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a transparent glass by HC Showkat Ahmad No.168/KGM. The side pockets of pant (colour brown) which was worn by accused Gh.Rasool Hajam and from which bribe money was recovered were dipped in the said solution by HC Showkat Ahmad. On immersing the pant pockets in the said solution, colour of the solution turned pink. This pink colour solution was preserved sealed & seized in a separate glass bottle marked as exhibit "C". The memos were prepared accordingly. Thereafter, the ACB team & independent witness proceeded towards the office of 2nd accused Tehsildar Shalteng and "Occasion file" titled "File No. 152 Roshni File Central Srinagar" consisting 19 leaves, was produced by one Ab. Majid Lone (Office Qanoongo, Tehsil Office Shalteng) S/O Gh. Mohd R/O Mujgund and same was seized in the instant case. On the basis of evidence collected which include initial demand, demand on spot and subsequent recovery of tainted money, other allied circumstances & custody of occasion file pointing towards involvement 12 CRM(M) No.115/2023 of Tehsildar Shalteng, namely, Younis Ahmad Bangroo in commission of offence, as such, he was arrested from his office where he was present. His personal search was conducted and memos were prepared, accordingly, and both the accused persons i.e., Gh. Rasool Hajam (Naib Tehsildar) and Younis Ahmad Bangroo (Tehsildar) were taken to police station ACB Srinagar, Old Secretariat, for further course of action. The Medical examination of the accused was ensured. The bribe money and other seized items were handed over to I/C Malkhana for safe custody. The items/articles which were recovered/seized during personal search of the accused were released by the Hon'ble Court of law vide order dated 17.08.2022 in their favour. During the course of investigation the accused Public Servants, namely, Younis Ahmad Bangroo (Tehsildar) and Ghulam Rasool Hajam (Naib Tehsildar) have been placed under suspension from the date of their arrest by the order of Division Commissioner, Kashmir vide order No. DivCom-K-848 of 2022 dated 20-07-2022 under endorsement No: Div.Com/ PS/ Misc/ 2022- 23/1082-88 Dated 20-07-2022 and both have been attached with the office of Deputy Commissioner's Office Srinagar. During course of investigation CDR of Cell numbers 9419022386, 9419007695, 9419052941 for the period of 01-06-2022 up to 18-07-2022 were obtained from the office of the BSNL J&K and the same have been placed on file which corroborate the sequence of events. During course of investigation, the Pre-Trap and Post-Trap washes were forwarded to FSL Srinagar for examination and opinion which has been obtained and placed on file. Witnesses acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case have been examined and their statements recorded under 13 CRM(M) No.115/2023 section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused Public Servants were arrested on 18.07.2022, and admitted to bail by the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption Kashmir at Srinagar on 28h July 2022. Further, one "Memory Card" used to record conversations between the accused and the complainant, during verification of complaint which corroborates the demand of bribe by the public servants, has been seized, sealed and marked as 'Q'. Further voice samples of accused persons as well as of the complainant Mr. Farooq were recorded in three (3) separate memory cards in presence of Executive Magistrate 1 Class, and the same cards were seized and sealed with adhesive tape and marked as "A1", "A2" & "C1" in presence of the Executive Magistrate and other witnesses on spot. questioned recording marked as 'Q', recorded during cation of complaint along with voice samples of accused ns and complainant Farooq Bhat have been forwarded to Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, for comparison on 08.09.2022. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 8. The learned counsels for the petitioner have stated that once there is no allegation as to direct acceptance of money as bribe, no offence as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act can be made out against him. The learned counsels for the petitioner would contend that the impugned FIR is based on false and frivolous grounds. The learned counsels for the petitioner also state that even if the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, still they do not make out a prima facie case which constitute any offence against petitioner. It is also submitted that the genesis of 14 CRM(M) No.115/2023 the impugned FIR emanates from the complaint, cognized by the investigating agency is barred under law to be proceeded from and the protection granted to public servants in immune from the projections of bogus complaints and cannot be permitted to hinder or place an embargo on the functioning of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 postulates impermeable protections of public servants with the object of curtailing frivolous complaints and the legislative presumption are always in favour of the public servant and the impugned FIR cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory protections and any violation thereto renders the impugned FIR without any justification in law and liable to be set at naught. 9. The petitioner seeks exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of the court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate the material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, acceptability of which is essentially a matter for the trial. 10. The judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if answer to all the steps, as enumerated herein 15 CRM(M) No.115/2023 after, is in affirmative, has been so said by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330:- “Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: i. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? ii. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. iii. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? iv. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?" 11. The case in hand, when examined on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, does not at all persuade this Court to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the instant petition. It is well settled law that Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. 16 CRM(M) No.115/2023 The inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. The power under Section 482 Cr.PC, is a very wide, but conferment of the wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779, has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Inherent powers in a matter of quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in provision itself. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is a very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the background of quashing the proceedings in the criminal investigation. After noticing the various earlier pronouncements, the Supreme Court made certain categories of cases by way of the 17 CRM(M) No.115/2023 illustration, where the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or secure the ends of justice. The paragraph 102, which gives seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are reproduced as follows: “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 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 channelized 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 other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under 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 non-cognizable 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 for the 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 18 CRM(M) No.115/2023 and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. In another case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Supreme Court, while dealing with inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., has observed and held as under: “5. Exercise of power under Section 482of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercises of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. xxxxxx 19 CRM(M) No.115/2023 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)…… xxxxxxx 8 As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See : The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another (AIR 1964 SC 1)). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether 20 CRM(M) No.115/2023 the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” 15. The above settled position of law has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Priti Saraf & anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & anr, 2021 SCC Online SC 206, and it has been said that inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize a complaint/FIR/ charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare cases, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception. It is settled that whether the allegations in the complaint were true, is to be decided on the basis of evidence during the trial. In the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court. 16. Even the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 SCC 701, set-aside the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the criminal complaint/FIR was quashed on the prayer made by the complainant himself. While quashing and setting-aside the order passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court in paras 13 and 27 to 29 has observed and held as under: 21 CRM(M) No.115/2023 “13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R./Complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can `soft-pedal the course of justice' at a crucial stage of investigation/ proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as ‘Cr.P.C.’) are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that esteem of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. (Vide State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949] , Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 : AIR 2000 SC 754] and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] ) xxx xxxx xxxx 27. The High Court proceeded on the perception that as the complainant himself was not supporting the complaint, he would not support the case of the prosecution and there would be no chance of conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile exercise. Quashing of FIR/Complaint on such a ground cannot be held to be justified in law. Ordinarily, the Court of Sessions is empowered to discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. even before initiating the trial. The accused can, therefore, move the Trial Court itself for such a relief and the Trial Court would be in a better position to analyse and pass an order as it is possessed of all the powers and the material to do so. It is, therefore, not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of a prosecution in such a case. The reliance on affidavits by the High Court would be a weak, hazy and unreliable source for adjudication on the fate of a trial. The presumption that an accused would never be convicted on the material available is too risky a proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in heinous offences like extortion. 28. A claim founded on a denial by the complainant even before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the police had compelled the lodging of a false FIR, is a matter which requires further investigation as the charge is levelled against the police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither the Trial Court nor the Investigating Agency has any opportunity to go into this question, which may require consideration. The State is the prosecutor and 22 CRM(M) No.115/2023 all prosecution is the social and legal responsibility of the State. An offence committed is a crime against a society and not against a victim alone. The victim under undue pressure or influence of the accused or under any threat or compulsion may resile back but that would not absolve the State from bringing the accused to book, who has committed an offence and has violated the law of the land. 29. Thus, while exercising such power the court has to act cautiously before proceeding to quash a prosecution in respect of an offence which hits and affects the society at large. It should be a case where no other view is possible nor any investigation or inquiry is further required. There cannot be a general proposition of law, so as to fit in as a straitjacket formula for the exercise of such power. Each case will have to be judged on its own merit and the facts warranting exercise of such power. More so, it was not a case of civil nature where there could be a possibility of compromise or involving an offence which may be compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., where the Court could apply the ratio of the case in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234 : AIR 1988 SC 709].” 17. In the above backdrop it may be appropriate to mention here that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. The High Court, while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude, it has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 18. Perusal of the instant petition and the contents contained therein require and demand full dress trial and examination of facts by this Court as if this Court is in appeal and acting as an appellate court and to draw its own conclusion vis-à-vis impugned FIR, complaint and proceedings 23 CRM(M) No.115/2023 emanating therefrom. This is not the aim and object of the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P.C., particularly when the petition on hand does not unveil any ground muchless cogent or material one, to indicate that the inherent powers are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The reference made by the learned counsels for the petitioner to the judgements are distinct in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that view of the matter, the impugned FIR does not call for any interference and consequently, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 10.09.2025 Qazi Amjad, Secy Whether the order is reportable: Yes