Judgment B.S. Chauhan, J.-The cases, deal with here, have chequered history as there have been several rounds of litigation before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in different forms at different stages and also before this Court in bail matters. (2). The instant criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing the complaint (C.R. No. 403/1996) registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, as also the further investigation pertaining to offences under Sections 120-B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 482 I.P.C. and Sections 17, 58(1)(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the “N.D.P.S. Act”). (3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that on 110.1996, one Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, a Practising Advocate filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, alleging that shop No. 6 in Vardharnan Market, Pali, owned by Smt. Amri Bai w/o Shri Jayant Raj had been taken on rent by one Mohan Lal in partnership of Narsingh Rajpurohit, brother of the complainant, for commercial purpose in the name and style of “Deepak Textiles” and part of the same was also used by the complainant as Office for his legal practice. The marriage of one Muli Devi, daughter of Rajmal, brother of accused Phootar Mal and uncle and applicant Rarnan Lal, had been arranged with Mr. Jayant Raj but she died before marriage could take place. Mr. Jayant Raj subsequently got married with landlady Smt. Amri Bai. The family of applicant Rarnan Lal maintained very good and cordial relationship with the family of Mr. Jayant Raj and started treating Amri Bai in place of Muli Devi. Applicant Rarnan Lal attended the rnarriage her son on 27.4.96 alongwith other family members. Accused No. 1 Phootar Mal, uncle of applicant Raman Lal, had been Power of Attorney-holder in respect of the said shop and a civil suit was pending in which the plaint had been signed and verified by him. Phootar Mal realised that so long complainant was with the tenants, it would be difficult to get their eviction from the shop. Accused No. 1 Phootar Mal, uncle of applicant Raman Lal, had been Power of Attorney-holder in respect of the said shop and a civil suit was pending in which the plaint had been signed and verified by him. Phootar Mal realised that so long complainant was with the tenants, it would be difficult to get their eviction from the shop. Accused persons conspired to get the said shop vacated and in furtherance thereof , they filed C.R. No. 216/1996 dated 30.4.96 under the provisions of Section 17 of the NAPS Act, alleging that complainant Sumer Singh stayed in Room No. 305 in Hotel Lajwanti, Palanpur on 29.4.96; signed the hotel register and his address was shown as resident of Vardhaman Market, Pali, and opium was recovered from the said room after receiving the phone call from an informer from Pali. However, before the recovery could be made, complainant had left the hotel leaving behind the opium. In the night intervening 2/3 May, 1996, the other accused, viz. Mr. I.B. Vyas and Mr. Yagyanik, alongwith other police officials, came to the complainant’s house at about mid night and arrested him. He was handcuffed, man- handled gagged, and taken away forcibly in a jeep bearing fake registration number. Mr. Goma Ram, P.S.1., Kotwali, Police Statio Pali, who was on patrolling duty, intercepted the vehicle of Gujarat Police heading towards Palanpur and brought them to the Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, wherein Gujarat Police Officials disclosed their identity and informed that the complainant was wanted in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. After giving arrest memo in connection with a case under the N.D.P.S. Act, they took away the complainant. By that time, family members and fellow Advocates also reached the Kotwali and some of them also went to Palanpur alongwith them. In Palanpur, he was produced before Mr. Sanjeev R. Bhatt, the then Distt. Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, co-accused, who enquired from the complainant about the said shop and asked him to vacate the same immediately otherwise he would be involved in a case of recovery of four kilograms of opium. In Palanpur, he was produced before Mr. Sanjeev R. Bhatt, the then Distt. Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, co-accused, who enquired from the complainant about the said shop and asked him to vacate the same immediately otherwise he would be involved in a case of recovery of four kilograms of opium. The involvement of the applicant-Raman Lal, who at the relevant time, was the Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court and is, now, Principal Judge of City Civil & Sessions Court at Ahmedabad, was also shown alleging that being interested in getting the shop vacated, he had hatched the conspiracy and was having telephonic talks with co-accused Phootar Mal and Mr. Sanjeev R. Bhatt and some of his phone-calls had also been taped. One Narain Singh Kharabera played a role of mediator and after taking all care and precautions, an agreement was signed between co-accused Phootar Mal and Mohan Lal - the original tenant - partner of the complainant’s brother for vacating the shop and an understanding was given that on releasing the said shop, complainant would be released and the case against him under the NDPS Act would be dropped. Raghunath Singh, real brother of the complainant also talked to applicant Raman Lal and the latter assured him that the complainant would be released and a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. would be submitted after vacating the said shop. For reaching the agreement in writing, complainant’s real brother Raghunath Singh purchased the stamp paper for Rs. 5/-and co-accused Phootar Mal got the agreement typed and it was got signed by Mohan Lal through Raghunath Singh on 5.96. The report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 6.5.96 itself , the same was accepted by the learned Special Judge, Palanpur on 15.1996 and the complain-ant was released. Keys of the said shop were handed over to co-accused Phootar Mal on 15.96. In sum and substance, according to the complainant, a conspiracy was hetched by the accused persons to get the shop vacated and in order to execute the said plan, the complainant was falsely enropped in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act, arrested, humiliated and on getting the shop vacated, report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was filed and he was discharged. (4). Alongwith the complaint, a large number of documents and two audio-cassettes were also submitted. (4). Alongwith the complaint, a large number of documents and two audio-cassettes were also submitted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali passed order dated 110.1996 u.Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case under Police Station, Kotwali, with direction that investigation be made by the officer not below the rank of Director General of Police. Inspite of said direction, the case was not registered as a revision had been filed by the State of Rajasthan on the ground that the Magistrate cannot pass an order to investigate an offence whatsoever against a Judge of the High Court unless the approval is accorded by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The said revision was subsequently dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, vide order dated 111.96 with the modification that investigation may be carried out by an officer below the rank of Director General of Police. The case was registered and investigation ensued. (5). District Bar Association, Pali, by way of Public Interest Litigation, filed Writ Petition No. 448 of 1997 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking action against applicant Raman Lal, pointing out his involvement. However, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.1997 with the liberty to approach the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on administrative side, the Bar Association submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on the same day, i.e. on 19.1997 requesting His Lordship not to confirm Mr. Raman Lal as Judge of the High Court. State of Gujarat and co-accused I.B. Vyas, Police Inspector, filed Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1302/1997 and 1309/1997 before the Gujarat High Court for quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, for investigation. The said applications were rejected by the learned Single Judge vide common Judgment dated 12.1997. (6). The Superintendent of Police (C.I.D.), Jaipur, sent a questionnaire through the Registrar, Gujarat High Court, to applicant Raman Lal for filling it up and as the applicant did not fill it up and returned the same, rather asked for extension of time, he was informed through the Registrar of the Gujarat High Court to remain present on 30.1.98 at Pali. Applicant was further informed by the Registrar that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court had granted permission to the Investigating Officer to interrogate the said applicant at the place and time convenient to the latter. Applicant was further informed by the Registrar that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court had granted permission to the Investigating Officer to interrogate the said applicant at the place and time convenient to the latter. The Investigating Officer further sent a letter to the said applicant through the Registrar of Gujarat High Court to remain present before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, at the time of filing the charge-sheet on 11.98. Instead of appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, applicant Raman Lal and co-accused Sanjeev R. Bhatt filed Special Criminal Applications Nos. 6 and 24 of 1998 before the Gujarat High Court challenging the action of the Authorities/Courts concerned on various grounds including the competence of the Criminal Court at Pali to take cognizance, and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, while entertaining their applications, granted interim relief However, the said applications were rejected by the learned Single Judge, vide common Judgment and order dated 9.7.98, on the ground that Gujarat High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, applicants therein preferred L.P.A. Nos. 906 and 930/1998 against the said Judgment and order. The appeals were also dismissed vide common Judgment and order dated 10.98. The said applicants filed Special Leave Petition (Cr1.) Nos. 4309 and 4375 of 1998 being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the Division Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court dated 10.98 and both criminal petitions stood rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.99 in limine. (7). Applicant Raman Lal filed Special Criminal Application against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.1997, contending that he had not been a party in the said case, even though certain observations/remarks had been made against him, which would adversely affect him. The Division Bench passed an order to the extent that observations made against the said applicant in the Judgment dated 12.1997 should not be used against him and the case is pending before the Gujarat High Court for final decision. (8). The Division Bench passed an order to the extent that observations made against the said applicant in the Judgment dated 12.1997 should not be used against him and the case is pending before the Gujarat High Court for final decision. (8). The Rajasthan Police filed a challan for various offences including the offence under Sections 17 and 58(1) and (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act and provisions of the Indian Penal Code against co-accused Phootar Mal before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Jodhpur and the said case stood transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, (N.D.P.S.), Delhi, by virtue of the order dated 11.98 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.P. (Cr1.) No. 38/1998. The investigation is being carried out further in pursuance of the order passed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Applicant Raman Lal had also filed T.P. (Cr1.) No. 98/1998, alongwith co-accused Sanjeev R. Bhatt, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case against them out-side Rajasthan. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order to the effect that as no charge-sheet had been submitted against them, no order could be passed. However, in case charge sheet is filed before the Court, applicants may renew their prayer for getting the same tried alongwith Sessions Case No. 19/1997, i.e. the subject matter of T.P. (Cr1.) No. 38/1998. (9). Applicant Raman Lal filed Special Criminal Application No. 1079 of 1998 on 20.11.98 before the Gujarat High Court challenging the validity of the Gujarat High Court Rules not providing Letters Patent Appeal in criminal cases being discriminatory as the same was limited in civil cases only, and therein he also prayed for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Interim relief was granted in favour of the said applicant on concession made by the Counsel for the State of Rajasthan and the same is continuing till today, as the same has been extended till further orders and the matter is still pending for final disposal before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The applicants preferred these applications before this Court as they could not succeed in getting any relief from any other Court. (10). It may also be pertinent to mention here that challenging the pendency of these cases, one co-accused I.B. Vyas filed Special Criminal Application No. 680 of 1999 before the Gujarat High Court for transferring the investigation to C.B.1. The applicants preferred these applications before this Court as they could not succeed in getting any relief from any other Court. (10). It may also be pertinent to mention here that challenging the pendency of these cases, one co-accused I.B. Vyas filed Special Criminal Application No. 680 of 1999 before the Gujarat High Court for transferring the investigation to C.B.1. and vide order dated 18.99, an interim order staying all further proceedings in connection with C.R. 403/96 of Police Station, Kotwali, Pali, has been passed and the interim order is still in force. Co-accused Phootar Mal’s bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.7.97 in connection with the same case, against which the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the S.L.P. (Cr1.) No. 260 1/97) in limine vide order dated 19.97 and he is in jail for more than two years. (11). In addition to the aforesaid legal proceedings, there have also been following petitions on behalf of the police officials involved in this case before the Gujarat High Court:- (a) Cr1. Misc. Appl. No. 5050/97, Sanjeev Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., disposed on 19.97 (b) Cr1. Misc. Appl. No. 6256/97, Sanjeev Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., disposed on 111.97. (c) Cri. Misc. Appl. No. 7034/97, Sanjeev Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., disposed on 12.97. (d) Spl. Appl. No. 926/98, Pravin Bhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., dismissed as withdrawn on 211.98. (e) Spl. Cri. Appl. No. 988/98, Rajendra Yagnik vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., dismissed as withdrawn on 211.98. (f) Spl. Cr1. Appl. No. 982/98, Sanjeev Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., dismissed as withdrawn on 10.12.98. (g) L.P.A. No. 102/98, Sanjeev R. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. -Pending. (12). The case is required to be considered in the aforesaid background. (A) Quashing of proceedings; (13). Legal maxim “Quando Aliquid Mandatur, Mandatur Et Omne Per Quod Per Venitur Ad means if anything is commanded, every thing by which it can be accomplished is also commanded. (g) L.P.A. No. 102/98, Sanjeev R. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. -Pending. (12). The case is required to be considered in the aforesaid background. (A) Quashing of proceedings; (13). Legal maxim “Quando Aliquid Mandatur, Mandatur Et Omne Per Quod Per Venitur Ad means if anything is commanded, every thing by which it can be accomplished is also commanded. But the inherent power of quashing the criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R or complaint and the extraordinary and inherent powers of Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. The same can be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate Courts or where the complainant, at the instance of somebody else wants to settle his score with other party and uses deliberately the machinery of the Court for oblique purpose and the party is likely to be subjected to unnecessary harassment for facing criminal proceedings or where the Court is satisfied that in case the proceedings are not quashed, there will be gross miscarriage of justice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can “soft- pedal the course of justice” at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. (Vide Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Abmed (AIR 1945 PC 18); State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ); Kurukshetra University v. State of Harayana ( AIR 1977 SC 2229 ); State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha ( AIR 1982 SC 949 ); Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. ( AIR 1988 SC 709 );Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.( AIR 1993 SC 892 ); Union of India v. W.N. Chadha (AIR 1993 SC 1082); Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. ( 1995(6) SCC 194 ); Musthaq Ahmad v. Mohammed Habibur Rahman Faizi & Ors. ( 1996(7) SCC 440 ); State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawal(JT 1996(1) SC 601); Ashim Kumar Roy v. Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta ( 1998(1) SCC 133 ); M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. ( 1995(6) SCC 194 ); Musthaq Ahmad v. Mohammed Habibur Rahman Faizi & Ors. ( 1996(7) SCC 440 ); State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawal(JT 1996(1) SC 601); Ashim Kumar Roy v. Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta ( 1998(1) SCC 133 ); M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. ( 1998(5) SCC 749 ); M. Krishna v. State of Karnataka (JT 1999(1) SC 540); Rakesh Ranjan Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors. ( 1999(1) SCC 188 ); State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan ( AIR 1999 SC 1044 ); Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors. ( 1999(6) SCC 146 ); Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. ( 1999(8) SCC 728 ); Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal ( 2000(1) SCC 722 ); G. Sagar Sun & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. ( 2000(2) SCC 636 ). (14). In State of U.P. vs. O.P. Sharma, 1996 (7) SCC 705 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has indicated that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code or under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be, and allow the law to take its own course. Similar view had been taken in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr. ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ). (15). Similar view had been taken in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr. ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ). (15). In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi ( AIR 1976 SC 1947 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guide-lines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.” (16). In L.V. Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar ( AIR 1983 SC 1219 ), the Apex Court held that Courts’ power is limited only to examine that the process of law should not be misused to harass a citizen and for that purpose, the High Court has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine the correctness of allegations unless the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion and that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the Court, at that stage, cannot go into the truth or falsity of the allegations. (17). Similar view has been reiterated in The Nagpur Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna (1997 SCC (Cr1.) 1073). (18). In Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. ( 1999(8) SCC 686 ), the Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier Judgment in Rajesh Bajaj v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi ( AIR 1999 SC 1216 ) and observed that the inherent power of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. (19). (18). In Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. ( 1999(8) SCC 686 ), the Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier Judgment in Rajesh Bajaj v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi ( AIR 1999 SC 1216 ) and observed that the inherent power of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. (19). In M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. (JT 2000(2) SC 426), the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier Judgment s, including Dr. Sharma’s Nursing Home v. Delhi Administration (1998(8) 5CC 745), and held that a criminal prosecution can be short-circuited in rarest of rare cases, and even in a case of breach of contract, not only civil remedy is attracted but a person can be held responsible for criminal prosecution and under no circumstance ‘civic profile’ can out-way the ‘criminal out fit.” (20). In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ),