The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the court should not interfere at the stage of investigation unless there is a risk of miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 0184/2021 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Brief facts of the case as per the present FIR are that petitioners had persuaded the respondents to invest Rs.3.50 Crores in a project, videlicet, American University of India incorporated on 25.08.2009 under Companies Act, 2013 and later had allegedly syphoned off the entire amount. The Hon'ble Madras High Court had quashed the FIR bearing no. 51/2018 vide order dated 12.04.2019 on the basis of amicable settlement between petitioner no.1 and third party. The respondent no.2/complainant had filed two complaints dated 22.01.2021 and 12.04.2021 against petitioners. The petitioners had received two notices dated 19.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 for preliminary investigation into the said complaints, respectively. Thereafter, on 03.12.2021, the present FIR was lodged against petitioners. The learned Trial Court had rejected an anticipatory bail application preferred by petitioners vide order dated 24.12.2021. The coordinate bench of this Court had dismissed an anticipatory bail moved by petitioners vide order dated 17.02.2022. Thereafter, learned Trial Court had granted interim protection to petitioners vide order dated 28.05.2022, however, the interim protection was vacated vide order dated 08.06.2022.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that respondent no. 2 had knowledge of the activities of the company that later converted into a trust and there was no intention to cheat respondents.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that petitioners/accused persons were actively involved in defrauding people. It is also stated that students have also been defrauded as fee was collected from them. Further, the allegations levelled against petitioners are of serious nature.

5. This Court has heard contentions raised on behalf of both sides and has perused the material on record.

6. In light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this court must look into the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the quashing of FIR in various judgments.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid the guidelines for quashing the FIR in the State of Haryana & Ors v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, which reads as under:

"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 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 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 other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 commiss