IMPORTANT POINT
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and only in the 'rarest of rare cases'. The judiciary should not interfere with the investigation of offenses unless there is a risk of miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 0571/2023, registered at Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 419/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner herein is presently posted as Deputy Superintendent at Central Jail No. 12, Mandoli Jail Complex, Delhi. On 01.11.2022, an anonymous typed written complaint was received in the office of the learned District Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, alleging that the petitioner subjected every new under-trial prisoner (`UTP') to harassment and extorted money from their family members. It is also alleged that some inmates, in collusion with the petitioner, facilitate this extortion by transferring significant sums through Paytm under the guise of providing amenities. The petitioner has allegedly established special barracks in each ward, entrusting their operation to selected inmates, including Nazim, Vijay, Vipin, Asif, Wasim, and Bilal. Some of these inmates were transferred from other jails by the petitioner and one Superintendent Bijendra without proper authorization, exacerbating harassment of new UTPs. It is further alleged that those inmates who refuse to pay, face further harassment, while other inmates receive preferential treatment, including special food, separate accommodation, and access to mobile phones provided by the petitioner. Furthermore, it is also alleged that the petitioner had been attempting to arrange an illegal meeting for an accused inmate namely, Satender @ Satte, on 13.10.2022. It is further alleged that his wife had impersonated herself as a lawyer using a fake ID, raising doubts about the petitioner's involvement. It is further submitted in the complaint that an inquiry into the incident was entrusted to one Jail Superintendent namely Bijendra, who allegedly had colluded with the petitioner and had cleared him of any wrongdoing, despite there being CCTV footage capturing the petitioner's involvement. It is also alleged that previous incidents of corruption involving the petitioner, including providing facilities to UTPs namely, Sukesh Chandrashekhar at Tihar Jail, have been reported. However, it is alleged that the petitioner has consistently evaded punishment with the protection of corrupt officials, who manipulate investigations in his favour. Therefore, it was prayed that an independent investigation be requested to uncover the truth and to preserve crucial CCTV footage.

3. The said complaint was marked to the learned CMM and thereafter to the learned Magistrate for necessary action. Thereafter, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-07, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi (`learned MM') had forwarded the complaint to the ACP, Nand Nagri, Delhi for enquiry and necessary action. In compliance of the said directions, the ACP concerned had filed an interim Action Taken Reports (`ATR') and had finally filed the complete ATR dated 13.02.2023, whereby it had been concluded that the allegations against the petitioner could not be substantiated. However, not being satisfied by the ATR dated 13.02.2023, the learned MM had passed an order dated 03.10.2023 directing the SHO, Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi to register an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 419/34/120B of the IPC. Pursuant to the same, the present FIR has been registered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case and that the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the learned MM fails to appreciate the fact that there are circulars of Central Vigilance Committee (`CVC') and in terms of those, no action can be taken on an anonymous complaint, irrespective of