ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. The petitioner is before this Court has made a prayer for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No. II – 60 of 2019 registered at Vadodara Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act.

3. Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel alongwith Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner states that, after the death of petitioner’s father, there was some dispute with the partners regarding the business dealing, and it is alleged that one other partner, namely Bhupendrabhai @ Tinabhai Shantilal Shah with some other persons hatched a conspiracy and planted a revolver in the dicky of the petitioner’s car. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge of such act but the information had been given to the police and the police stopped his car, and on the search, the revolver was found from his car and he was arrested by the police.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on investigation the police found that the petitioner was not involved in the offence. He was released on bail vide order dated 20.07.20019 passed by the learned JMFC, Vadodara. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 20.07.2019 the police filed a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the police found that the FIR against the petitioner is the result of the conspiracy hatched by the business rivalry and therefore a complaint was filed against one partner Bhupendrabhai @ Tinabhai Shantilal Shah. Thereafter the report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned JMFC, Vadodara; notice was issued to the Police Inspector and ultimately on 14.08.2019 the order was passed and the report came to be rejected by the learned JMFC, Vadodara.

3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the report was on technical ground. He further submitted that since the police has already filed a report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. finding no criminality against the petitioner, and thus, if the police takes time to file summary report and the court takes time to decide the same; it would amount to perpetuating the stigma on the petitioner, and on that ground itself, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR.

4. Learned APP relying on the report of Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Vadodara (Rural), dated 11.06.2021 stated that the final report “A” Summary has been filed before the concerned court and the police has not found any evidence against the present petitioner and the rest of the accused who were arrested against them chargesheet has been filed on

23.12.2019.

5. In the order dated 14.08.2019 the learned 29th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, has observed in para 34 and 35 as under:

“34. It is, therefore, clear that Section 169 of the Code does not contemplate making of any report to the Court. It only requires investigating ofÏcer to release an accused on bond, where there is no sufÏcient material to send him for trial. The Police Manual and the Gujarat Criminal Manual contemplate different types of summaries. The Summary Class A is contemplated, where the complaint is true, but, undetected, or, where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or the property or where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate for trial.

35. There is a serious misconception of law in the minds of the police as well as the subordinate Courts. The misconception is that when the police files a report saying that no case is made out against the accused to send him to trial, such report is filed under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. As explained by me earlier, Section 169 only talks about release of the accused when the evidence is found to be deficient. The correct procedu