The judgment emphasizes the legal provisions for quashing FIR and the specific grounds under which such power could be exercised.

1. - The present petition is preferred for quashing the FIR No.298/2015 for the offences u/s 420, 406 and 419 IPC registered at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur wherein allegations against the petitioner are that he introduced himself as an Advocate and received Rs. 30,000/- as his legal fees and Rs. 15,000/- for making payment to Magistrate as he told that he has talked with Magistrate thereafter periodically he took amount from the complainant and he received total amount as Rs. 66,500/- while neither he is an advocate nor he has any power for plead in the court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations in the FIR are false, the case in which complainant alleges that he enaged him as an advocate, same has already been compromised between the parties. Petitioner has not received money from the complainant, therefore, FIR may be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Aladeen Khan submit that from the investigation the allegations levelled in the FIR are found true, therefore, no case is made out for quashing the FIR.

4. Heard.

5. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated seven grounds for quashing the FIR which are as under:-

"105. 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 extra-ordinary 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 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 cognisable 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 commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable 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 and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

6. From t