The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and with caution, in accordance with the parameters laid down in the relevant legal provisions and established case law.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 17/12/2021 (Annexure-P/1) on the ground that it is ex facie, arbitrary and illegal. The act of respondent No.4 along with respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5 suffers from vice of arbitrariness, mala fide, highhandedness and capricious exercise of power.

2. It is also mentioned that at no point of time, departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner but there is delay in lodging of FIR.

3. A perusal of the FIR reveals that some property as is mentioned in the agreement contained in different survey numbers at Tahsil Ashta, Disttt. Sehore were registered in the year 2008 by the petitioner as power of attorney holder suppressing a fact that said land was, in fact, Government land, received by the allottees on lease (Patta) which was non-transferable.

4. Taking these facts into consideration so also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,221 SCC OnLine 315 in para-80 has held as under :

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'ÂÂrarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self- restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint