The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie legal evidence to prosecute, the caution in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the distinction between reliable evidence and suspicion of motive.

Rakesh Saksena, J.

1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against them in respect of Crime No. 462/2008, registered by Police Station, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal under Sections 387, 507, 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against them and three other accused persons. In respect of above charge sheet, (State of M.P. v. Pradeep Shrivas. R.T. No. 5817/2009) is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that complainant Rajendra Agal, a Journalist by profession, who had published an article in his fortnightly magazine `Aks' and had made number of complaints against the Petitioners to Lokayukta and other high Officers, lodged a report with the police that on 7th August, 2008, some unknown person purporting himself to be Vikram Singh made a telephone call to him saying that since he had highlighted the scam of Rs. 15 crore, those persons had given him contract to eliminate him. But, since he knew that he was very good man and belonged to a very good family, he did not want to kill him, however he was bound to do it, because he had received 5 lakhs from that person. He wanted to meet the complainant and suggested him that he should take precaution. He further suggested that if he met and talked him, he will solve his problem and instead eliminate the person, who gave contract for his killing. It is said that complainant recorded the said conversation and at that time switched on the speaker of phone whereby other persons namely Mohar Singh, Brijesh Sahu, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma & Constable Laxman Yadav, P.S.O. could also hear the same. According to complainant, it was a real threat because he had published big scams in which Petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, the then Director of Health and Family Welfare and Ashok Nanda, a close friend of Yogiraj Sharma were involved. According to him, he suspected the hands of these persons behind this deal.

3. Receiving this information police registered the First Information Report as Crime No. 462/2008. During investigation statements of complainant Rajendra Agal, Mohar Singh, Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma and Constable Laxman Yadav, who was appointed complainant's Personal Security Officer were recorded. Script of the tape recorded conversation was seized by the police. Statements of the aforesaid witnesses and the script repeated the same narration which was mentioned in the written report submitted by the complainant and in the F.I.R. recorded by the police. Call details of Mobile No. 9009119303 from which call was made were obtained from the concerned Company and was found that the said mobile stood in the name of accused Mohar Singh. Mohar Singh was arrested and the said mobile was recovered from him. Record of Aman Palace Hotel, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal was seized which disclosed that Mohar Singh had stayed in the hotel from 24.7.2008 to 2.8.2008. Accused Pradeep Shrivas was also arrested and from his possession a country made 315 bore Katta and two cartridges were seized. In a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded on an information by Pradeep Shrivas, it was disclosed by him that accused Veerkant Nigam had offered him Rs. 5 lakhs for killing complainant Rajendra Agal and Veerkant Nigam had obtained Rs. 2 lakhs from Petitioner Ashok Nanda (Contractor) and had given Rs. 40,000/-to him. Since he could not commit murder of Rajendra Agal, Veerkant Nigam demanded his money back, therefore, he gave a cheque of Rs. 30,000/-to him from his account. He also disclosed that the mobile with which he talked to Rajendra Agal was with Mohar Singh. Another memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by accused Veerkant Nigam in which it was disclosed that contractor Ashok Nanda had given a contract of Rs. 5 lakhs for eliminating the complainant. He had received Rs. 2 lakhs and out of that