Point of Law: Criminal Law - Recovery of amount - Release of accused when evidence deficient - Sought for quash of FIR and Charge sheet - Exercise of extraordinary and inherent power of High Court - petitioner has been able to make out his case for exercise of extraordinary and inherent power of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. Court find that the nature of material brought on record in pursuance of investigation and filing of charge-sheet does not even prima-facie indicate involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

2. By this petition, petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) and charge-sheet submitted in pursuance of completion of investigation concerning the said FIR. According to the petitioner, there is no material brought on record to even remotely link the petitioner with the alleged offence and therefore, the present petition deserves to the allowed.

3. In the present case, an FIR dated 04.02.2017 was registered against unknown person on the basis of a complaint loaded by respondent No.3. According to respondent No.3, on 03.02.2017 when she was working in her office where she was required to deal with cash amounts, an unknown person approached her and stated that he required one currency note of Rs.2000/- as he had some Pooja at his place, in respect of which he was ready to give four currency notes of Rs.500/- each. It was further stated in the aforesaid complaint that when respondent No.3 eave one currency note of Rs.2000/- in exchange of four currency notes of Rs.500/-, the said unknown person said that he wanted the currency note of Rs.2000/- for exchange in better condition.

4. As per the respondent No.3, while saying so, the unknown person took the bundle of currency notes of Rs.2000/- from her and exchanged a currency note of Rs.2000/- while returning the rest of the bundle. According to the respondent No.3, she could not realise as to what had happened, but after lunch time, when the accounts in the office were being reconciled, she realised that 17 currency notes of Rs.2000/- were missing. This is when she realised that the said unknown person had taken away those 17 currency notes of Rs.2000/-. Respondent No.3 immediately reported the matter to her superiors and eventually the said complaint was lodged on 04.02.2017, leading to registration of FIR against the unknown person. The description of the unknown person was given in the said FIR.

5. Thereafter on 07.08.2017, the petitioner was picked up by the Police alleging that he was the very person who had taken the said currency notes from the respondent No.3. The petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class where his police remand was sought. It was claimed that such remand of the petitioner was necessary in order to search for co-accused persons on 07.08.2017. The Magistrate passed the order granting police remand of the petitioner upto 11.08.2017. Prior to the said order, the material on record shows that on 06.08.2017, the Police Sub Inspector claimed that on the basis of secret information it was revealed that the petitioner was the very person responsible for the aforesaid crime. He was confronted and when his search was carried out, an amount of Rs.2750/- was recovered from him.

6. Supplementary statements of witnesses were recorded on 07.08.2017, which revealed that they were called to the Police Station and they were told that the petitioner was the very person who was responsible for the said crime. Thereafter, investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has filed the present petition contending that he has been falsely implicated and there is not even an iota of evidence with the investigative agency to link the petitioner with the aforesaid crime.

8. Mr. Hassnain Kaazi Sayyed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was being falsely implicated in the present case and there was no material to link the present petitioner with the aforesaid crime. It was further submitted that the Police had earlier registered FIRs against the petitioner in cases where the complainants had claimed that unknown persons had committed crimes. It was also highlighted that in one of such FIRs the Police had filed a report under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court contents of the complai