Shani Singh v. Party(s)

2. Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Shani Singh, with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding as well as charge-sheet dated 02.09.2025 summoning / cognizance order dated 08.09.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kankerkheda, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed.

4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report was lodged on 22.05.2025 by the opposite party no.3 against the applicant for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act with regard to a trap which was laid and the applicant being arrested in it accepting bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 02.09.2025 was filed against the applicant for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut vide order dated 08.09.2025 took cognizance upon the same and summoned him to face trial. The accused- applicant is on bail in the matter. The challenge has thus been made in the present matter to the order of summoning and cognizance dated 08.09.2025, 2 NA528 No. 4194 of 2026 charge-sheet dated 02.09.2025 and the entire proceedings thereof.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the letter for obtaining sanction was sent to a different authority whereas the order of sanction has been passed by a different authority and thus the grant of sanction dated 02.09.2025 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone is illegal and the said Officer was incompetent to grant sanction. It is further submitted that there is no video or statement of witnesses collected during investigation. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 22.05.2025 at 14:45 hours and was subjected to medical examination on 23.05.2025 at 06:10 AM and was found to have received bite mark on left shoulder anterior aspect which is totally unexplained by the prosecution. It is submitted that as such the present under Section 528 B.N.S.S. be allowed and the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the present proceedings were initiated on the basis of trap which was laid in which Rs. 1,50,000/- was recovered from the applicant which was accepted by him as bribe. It is submitted that during investigation witnesses have been examined who have supported the prosecution case. The charge-sheet gives the list of witnesses in support of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that sanction as accorded is a valid sanction and the officer according sanction was competent to grant sanction and more so the question of incompetence of the officer concerned to grant sanction is a matter of trial which can raised at the stage of trial but this Court cannot discharge the accused at this stage on the said ground. It is further submitted that in so far as the alleged bite mark on the body of the applicant is concerned has been opined by the doctor to be simple in nature and the duration of it is opined to be about 15 hours which does not in any manner correspond with the time of his arrest and even otherwise the same would not render the prosecution case doubtful in its entirety. It is submitted that the same is also subject matter of trial to be raised at the appropriate stage of trial. It is submitted that as such there is no irregularity or illegality in the present proceedings and the present petition be dismissed.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the allegation against the applicant is of accepting Rs. 1,50,000/- as bribe and he is alleged to have arrested in trap by the 3 NA528 No. 4194 of 2026 authorities. The first information report was lodged and then matter was investigated and charge-sheet has been submitted. The court concerned took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and summoned the applicant. The applicant is on bail in the present matter. In so far as the competence and challenge of the order of sanction is concerned, the same has to be seen in trial as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman Airport Authority: 2012 (1) SCC 532, State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. G. Easwaran: Criminal Appeal No. 1405 / 2019 decided on 26.03.2025 and The Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Vs. Laxman Rao Peshve: SLP Criminal Appeal No. 11870 / 2023 decided on 16.09.2023. The same cannot be a ground for discharge of the accused. In so far as the investigation is concerned, the charge-sheet goes to show that there are witnesses who have been examined during investigation who have supported the prosecution case. The injuries as is alleged to have been received by the applicant is concerned, the same is a matter of trial to be looked into therein at the appropriate stage.

8. The law with regard to quashing of a case is trite. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge:

13.1. 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 cognizable offences.

13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.

13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 4 NA528 No. 4194 of 2026

13.5. 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.

13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.

13.8. 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. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.

13.10. 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.

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

13.12. 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. During or 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.

13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

13.14. 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 R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the 5 NA528 No. 4194 of 2026 allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

9. Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing that only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S, the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

10. The present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is thus devoid of any merit and is dismissed. February 3, 2026 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)