JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 497/2020 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur Rural for offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Seizure Officer has not having the right of seizure proceeding when the SHO was present at the Police Station. So the present FIR may be quashed. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR No. 497/2020 may be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the material on record.

5. From the perusal of the FIR and documents on record, it is clearly mentioned in the FIR that accused-petitioner Vinod Choudhary ran away from the spot and he was identified by the Police. The Seizure Officer was authorized or not, it will decide at final stage of the trial. Prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, at this preliminary stage, it cannot be said that FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajanlal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

“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 extraordinary 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 FIR 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 commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 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.

103. We also give a note of cauti