IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Quashing of criminal case – Scope of allowing prayer for quashing is limited and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it is manifestly clear that no offense is made out – At the stage of investigation, Courts should refrain from pre-emptively quashing criminal proceedings unless there is evident abuse of process.
(2) Anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where allegations hinge on official records and presence of accused can be secured without pre-trial detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant-accused in First Information Report¹ [In short “FIR”] being I-C.R. No. 33 of 2011 registered on 12.05.2011 with Tankara Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Gujarat for offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.² [In short “IPC”]

3. Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 7960 of 2011, dismissing the appellant’s prayer for quashing of the above-mentioned FIR.

4. Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 2812 of 2019 challenges the order of the High Court dated 28.02.2019 in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 2367 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail in the abovementioned case.

5. The facts giving rise to both the above proceedings are that an FIR being I-C.R. No. 33 of 2011 was registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114, IPC at the instance of respondent no. 2 in the appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019. The complainant was the Mamlatdar of village Tankara at the relevant time and had lodged the FIR on behalf of the State on 12.05.2011, alleging that the government land bearing survey no. 2 admeasuring 65 acres, situated at Village Anandpara was allotted to one D.J. Mehta and others on 19.05.1970 by way of Santhani for personal cultivation as per the entry made in village Form No. VI. Since the said allottees were not staying in the village and were not cultivating the land personally, the then Deputy Collector, Morbi registering the case as Sharatbhang No. 40/2000, forfeited the land in favour of the Government vide order dated 15.11.2000. The said allottees in the year 2007, therefore filed an appeal before the then Collector, Rajkot (i.e. the present appellant). In the said appeal, the appellant, as the Collector, set aside the said order of the Deputy Collector and directed to restore the land in the name of the said allottees vide order dated 27.03.2008. The said order passed by the appellant was taken into revision by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who set aside the order of the appellant and directed to enter the name of the Government in the revenue records. According to the complainant, the appellant, who was the District Collector, Rajkot at the relevant time, had, knowing fully well that the said allottees were staying abroad and not cultivating the land as per the order of allotment, and therefore were not eligible to get back the land, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, with a view to unduly favour them and that too without verifying the genuineness of the power of attorney holder, who had filed the appeal before the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Appeals) on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased allottees, Mr. Mehta and others. Thus, the appellant acting against the interest of the Government and with a view to unduly favour the allottees, had passed the order with malicious intention, and thereby had committed the offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC.

6. Appellant preferred an application (R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 7960 of 2011) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973³ [In short “Cr.P.C.”] seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the allegations were baseless and did not disclose any cognizable offense, and further that the complaint was malicious and was filed only because the appellant’s brother was at odds with the political leaders of the area. It was further urged that the police department had been insistent upon harassing the appellant by registering multiple cases against him. It was argued that the FIR was lodged by the Mamlatdar, acting on behalf of the State, without proper examination of the factual matrix, including the allotment of government land and its subsequent use by the allottees