The power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the truthfulness or falsehood of allegations made by the complainant is to be established by evidence before the trial court.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava ,J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant praying for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.0154/2019 by Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act and added Sections 3/181, 5/180, 39/192/1, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The facts leading to filing of present petition are that the petitioner is owner of the hotel namely Rawat Hotel at Pohari, District Shivpuri. The said hotel is situated near Police Station Pohari and police persons used to come and eat food in the hotel without payment. When the petitioner asks to pay the bill, the police persons of Police Station Pohari threaten the petitioner, therefore the petitioner denied to offer the food without payment, upon which police persons felt annoyed against the petitioner and with a view to take revenge, the police persons came at the hotel and requested the son of the petitioner for dropping them at Police Station. The petitioner's son dropped the police persons at the Police Station through his vehicle No. M.P. 33-C-5012. When the petitioner's son did not return, the petitioner reached the Police Station. The police persons demanded Rupees One Lac and on failure to fulfill their demand, they threatened to register a case under Section 34(2) of Excise Act. The petitioner denied to fulfill the illegal demand; therefore, a case under Section 34(2) of Excise Act and under Sections 3/181, 5/180, 39/192/1 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act has been registered against the son of the petitioner and his vehicle has also been seized.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's son has not committed any offence. The hotel of the petitioner is situated near Police Station Pohari where the police persons come and eat the food without any payment. Upon refusal by the petitioner to give the food without payment, the false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner's son, against which, the petitioner made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri on 14/06/2019 but no action was taken against the erring incumbents. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR registered against the petitioner's son.

4. On the the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

6. In Amit kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr.,2012 8 SCC 460 , the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:-

27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

27.2 The court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an