Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—As both the criminal misc. petitions relate to FIR No. 330 of 2011, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate filed the S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.60 of 2012 Ramswaroop Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and another regarding the FIR No. 330 of 2011 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur City (South) on dated 23.10.2011 for the offence under Sections 467, 478, 120 B IPC for fair and proper investigation in the matter. 3. Mr. Rajendra Yadav, Govt. Advocate and Public Prosecutor himself has filed S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 69 of 2012 for quashing of the FIR No.330 of 2011 for offence under Secs. 167, 197, 198, 218, 219, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 120B IPC registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (South). 4. Brief facts of the case are that Ranswaroop Sharma son of Radhakishan, resident of plot No. E 651, Gupta Store, Vaishali Nagar, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.11 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur against Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Government Advocate, Rajasthan High Court Jaipur, and Shyam Lal Sharma son of Ramgopal Sharma, resident of F 440 Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur under section 190 Cr.P.C. for the offence under sections 167, 197, 198, 218, 219, 420, 469, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120 IPC. The complaint as shown in FIR (Annexure-1 in S.B.Cr.Misc. The complaint as shown in FIR (Annexure-1 in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No. 60/2012) reads as under: ^^1- ;g fd eqLrxhl IykV uEcj bZ-651 oS'kkyh uxj dk fuoklh gS rFkk eqyfte la[;k 1 jktdh; vf/koäk mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa dk;Zjr gS rFkk eqyfte la[;k 2 eqLrxhl dk lEcU/kh gSA 2- ;g fd izkFkhZ dh nksfgrh ¼iq=h dh iq=h½ us tfj;s bLrxklk ,d ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 337@11 vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 vkbZ-ih-lh- esa iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj esa vfHk;qä la- 2 o mlds ifjokj ds fo:) ntZ djok;h FkhA 3- ;g fd vfHk;qä la[;k 2 us tks fd gkbZdksVZ esa ,MoksdsV tujy lkgc ds dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr gS vius in ds izHkko ls eqyfte la[;k 1 ls feydj iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj esa ntZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 307@11 esa vUos"k.k dks jksdus ds fy;s vfHk;qä la[;k 1 ls >waBs o v'kq) nLrkost ¼izek.k i=½ gLrk{kfjr dj iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh ds uke tkjh djok nhA 4- ;g fd vfHk;qä la[;k 1 tks yksdlsod dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS u vuqfpr ykHk izkir dj iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh ds uke ls v'kq) >waBk izek.k9= tkjh dj fn;k fd ljdkj cuke iadt xkSM+ fiVh'ku la[;k 1690@11 ,l-ch- fØfeuy fiVh'ku jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa yxh ftl ij iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj lh/kh mPp U;k;ky; esa Hkst nh xbZA tcfd mä iadt dk eqdnek dksVZ esa vkt rd Hkh ugha gqvk gS QthZ i= tkjh djrs gq, Mk;jh ryc QjekbZ gSA 5- ;g fd mä rgjhj ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 12-7-2011 dks nkSjkus vuqla/kku dsl Mk;jh vfHk;qä la- 1 ds }kjk eaxokdj Lo;a us ikl j[k yh xbZ rkfd vuqla/kku u gks lds vkSj bl izdkj ls U;kf;d dk;Z esa cka/kk igqapkbZ gSA 6- ;g fd vfHk;qä la[;k 1 us vuqfpr ykHk izkIr dj in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k gS ,oa vfHk;qä la[;k 1 us Lo;a cpus ds fy;s ;g dkjxqtkjh dh gS rFkk /kks[kk?kM+h dh gS QthZ nLrkost cukdj U;k; dk xyk ?kksaV fn;k gS tks ,d laxhu vijk/k dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA 7- ;g fd vfHk;qäx.kksa dh mä dk;Zokgh ls ifjoknh ds ifjokj dks U;k; ugha fey ik jgk gS rFkk dsl Mk;jh u gksus dh otg ls iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh eqyftekuksa dks vjsLV ugha dj ik jgs gSa rFkk ,QvkbZvkj la[;k 337@2011 esa ntZ L=h/ku dks Hkh [kqnZ cqnZ djus ij yxs gSa tcfd U;k;ky; }kjk dsl Mk;jh ds ekaxus ds dksbZ vkns'k ugha gq, gSA 8- ;g fd ifjoknh }kjk tc iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh }kjk yEcs le; rd dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ rc 14-7-2011 dks izxfr fjiksVZ eaxokus ds fy;s U;k;ky; ,-lh-ts- ¼ts-Mh-½ ua- 11 t;iqj egkuxj esa izkFkZuk i= yxk;k x;k ftl ij U;k;ky; us fjiksVZ ryc Qjekus ds vkns'k fn;s ftl ij iqfyl }kjk ;g fjiksVZ is'k dh xbZ fd nkSjkus vuqla/kku dsl Mk;jh ,l-ch- fØfeuy fiVh'ku uEcj 1690@11 ds rgr mPp U;k;ky; esa eaxok yh xbZ gS ftldk muoku ljdkj cuke iadt xkSM+ crk;k x;k gSA ;g fjiksVZ izkIr gksus ds ckn ifjoknh }kjk U;k;ky; esa irk djus ij irk pyk fd bl uEcj o uke ls dksVZ dsl U;k;ky; esa ugha yxk gS rFkk 1690@2011 dh vkfcn gqlSu dk izkFkZuk i= gS tks lquokbZ esa 15-7-2011 dks yxk gSA 9- ;g fd eqLrxhl dks fo'oLr lw=ksa ls Kkr gqvk gS fd eqyfteku jktdh; vf/koäk ds ikl dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr gksus ls in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, vuSfrd :i ls eqyftekuksa us dsl Mk;jh esa yxs gq, vly djhc 125 nLrkost dks fudky fy;s rFkk dsl Mk;jh esa Hkh dkV NkaV dj fn;k gS rkfd eqLrxhl dk dsl detksj gks jgk gS ftls ifjoknh dks xgjk lnek yxk gS rFkk ifjoknh o mldk ifjokj Hkz"Vkpkj ds f'kdkj gks jgs gSa QthZ dk;Zokgh dh lwpuk izkFkZuki= }kjk Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj ns nh gSA 11- ;g fd mä ?kVuk iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj esa gqbZ bl dkj.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks mä ifjokn dks lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA 12- ;g fd mä bLrxklk ij fu;ekuqlkj U;k; 'kqYd is'k dh tk jgh gSA vr% ifjokni= is'k dj fuosnu gS fd ifjokn dks /kkjk 156¼3½ lhvkjihlh ds rgr foLr`r tkap ,oa dk;Zokgh gsrq izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokus ds dk;Zokgh djrs gq, djokus ds vkns'k ds lkFk iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj dks izsf"kr Qjekus dh —ik djsa ;k eqLrxhl ds c;ku fy;s tkdj eqyfte ds f[kykQ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djrs gq, eqyfte dks l[r ls l[r ltk nsus dh —ik djsaA 5. The matter was sent for investigation at Police Station Vaishali Nagar under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But due to jurisdiction it was sent back to the court concerned. The trial court sent the matter to Police Station Ashok Nagar,Jaipur City where it was registered as FIR No.330 of 2011 on 23.10.2011. The petitioner Ram Swaroop Sharma in his petition stated that the matter relating to respondent office “ Government Advocate Office” and there is involvement of one accused Shyam Lal Sharma in other FIR 337 of 2011 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar. They arranged to call the case diary of matter in wrong case. The case diary was sent on dated 12 July 2011 at High Court. The SHO Police Station Vaishali Nagar vide note (Annexure-2 in SB.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2012) reported as under : ^^egksn;] eqdnek gktk esa eqLrxhl ,oe vU; lacaf/kr xokgku ds c;ku ys[kc) fd;s tk pqds gSA i=koyh nkSjkus vuqla/kku S.B. fØfeuy fiVh'ku la[;k 1690 ljdkj cuke iadt xkSM+ esa jkt- mPp U;k;ky; esa fHktokbZ xbZ FkhA i=koyh mPp U;k;ky; esa fnukad 12-7-11 dks fHktokbZ xbz Fkh tgka ls vHkh rd izkIr ugha gqbZ gSA fjiksVZ lsok esa izf"kr gSA Sd/- SHO P.S. Vaishili Nagar Jaipur City West “ 6. Thereafter on 8.11.2011 the complainant petitioner Ramswaroop filed the following application (Annexure- 3 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 60/2012) before the Judicial Magistrate No. 11 Jaipur : ^^U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV d-[k- ua-11 t;iqj jkeLo:i cuke jktsUnz o vU; izkFkZuk i= u/s 210 Cr.P.C. FIR No. 330/2011 U/s. 420,467,468 IPC PS v'kksd uxj Jhekuth 1@ ;g fd mijksä muokuh eqdnesa esa ,d bLrxklk Fkkuk v'kksx uxj Hkstk x;k Fkk tks fnukad 21-10-11 dks ntZ gqvk gSA 2@ ;g fd ifjoknh ds c;ku gks pqds gS ysfdu vHkh rd dksbZ urhtk U;k;ky; gktk esa is'k ugha gqvk gSA 3@ ;g fd Fkkuk v'kksd uxj ls mä eqdnesa dh Progress ryc Qjek;h tkos rkfd eqdnesa dk Kku gks ldsA vr% izkFkZuki= is'k dj vtZ gS fd Progress report ryc Qjekus dh —ik djs izkFkhZ (Ram Swaroop)) tfj;s MP Agrawal, Advocate 8.11.11“ 7. The Police Station Ashok Nagar on 17.11.2011 submitted report (Annexure-4 in S.B.Cr. Misc. The Police Station Ashok Nagar on 17.11.2011 submitted report (Annexure-4 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.60/ 2012) before the JM No.11 Jaipur Metopolitan Jaipur, which reads as under : ^^egksn;] okD;kr eqdnek gktk bl izdkj ls gs fd fnukad 23-10-2011 dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; Jheku~ ,lhts ¼tsMh½ ts,e ua- 11 t;iqj egkuxj t;iqj ls /kkjk 156¼3½ tk-Qks- ds rgr bLrxklk eqLrxhl Jh jkeLo:i 'kekZ iq= Jh jk/kkfd'ku fuoklh IykV uEcj bZ 651 xqIrk LVksj oS'kkyh uxj t;iqj dk bl vk'k; dk izkIr gqvk fd eqLrxhl IykV ua- bZ 651 dk fuoklh gS rFkk eqyfte la[;k 1 jktdh; vf/koä mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa dk;Zjr gS rFkk eqyfte la[;k 2 eqLrxhl dk lEcU/kh gSA izkFkhZ dh nksfgrh ¼iq=h dh iq=h½ us tfj;s bLrxklk ,d ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 337@11 vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 vkbZ-ih-lh- esa iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj esa vfHk;qä la[;k 2 o mlds ifjokj ds fo:) ntZ djok;h FkhA vfHk;qä la[;k 2 us tks fd gkbZdksVZ esa ,MoksdsV tujy lkgc ds dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr gS vius in ds izHkko ls eqyfte la[;k 1 ls feydj iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj esa ntZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 337@11 esa vUos"k.k dks jksdus ds fy;s vfHk;qä la[;k 1 ls >waBs o v'kq) nLrkost ¼izek.ki=½ gLrk{kfjr dj iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh ds uke tkjh djok nhA vfHk;qä la[;k 1 tks yksd lsod dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS us vuqfpr ykHk izkIr dj iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh ds uke ls v'kq) >waBk izek.ki= tkjh dj fn;k fd ljdkj cuke iadt xkSM+ fiVh'ku la[;k 1690@11 ,l-ch- fØfeuy fiVh'ku jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa yxh ftl ij iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj lh/kh mPp U;k;ky; esa Hkst nh xbZA tcfd mä iadt dk eqdnek dksVZ esa vkt rd Hkh ughas gqvk gS QthZ i= tkjh djrs gq, Mk;jh ryc QjekbZ gSA ;g fd mä rgjhj ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 12-7-2011 dks nkSjkus vuqla/kku dsl Mk;jh vfHk;q:a lq[;k 1 ds }kjk eaxokdj Lo;a us ikl j[k yh xbZ rkfd vuqla/kku u gks lds vkSj bl izdkj ls U;kf;d dk;Z esa ck/kk igqapkbZ gSA fd vfHk;qä la[;k 1 us vuqfpr ykHk izkIr dj in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k gS ,oa vfHk;qä la[;k 1 us Lo;a cpus ds fy;s ;g dkjxqtkjh dh gS rFkk ifjoknh dh nksfgrh ds lkFk vU;k; fd;k gS rFkk /kks[kk?kM+h dh gS QthZ nlrkost cukdj U;k; dk xyk ?kksaV fn;k gS tks ,d laxhu vijk/k dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA vfHk;qäx.kksa dh mä dk;Zokgh ls ifjoknh ds ifjokj dks u;k; ugha fey ik jgk gS rFkk dsl Mk;jh u gksus dh otg ls iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh eqyftekuksa dks vjsLV ugha dj ik jgs gSa rFkk ,QvkbZvkj la[;k 337@2011 esa ntZ L=h/ku dks Hkh [kqnZ cqnZ djus ij yx gSa tcfd U;k;ky; }kjk dsl Mk;jh ds ekaxus ds dksbZ vkns'k ugha gq, gSA ifjoknh }kjk tc iqfyl Fkkuk oS'kkyh }kjk yEcs le; rd dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ rc 14-7-2011 dks izxfr fjiksVZ eaxokus ds fy;s U;k;ky; ,-lh-ts- ¼ts-Mh-½ ua-11 t;iqj egkuxj esa izkFkZuk i= yxk;k x;k ftl ij U;k;ky; us fjiksVZ is'k dh xbZ fd nkSjkus vuqla/kku dsl Mk;jh ,l-ch- fØfeuy fiVh'ku uEcj 1690@11 ds rgr mPp U;k;ky; esa eaxok yh xbZ gS ftldk muoku ljdkj cuke iadt xkSM+ crk;k x;k gSA ;g fjiksVZ izkIr gksus ds ckn ifjoknh }kjk U;k;ky; esa irk djus ij iyk pyk fd bl uEcj o uke ls dksVZ dsl U;k;ky; esa ugha yxk gS rFkk 1690@2011 dh vkfcn gqlSu dk izkFkZuk i= gS tks lquokbZ esa 15-7-2011 dks yxk gSA eqLrxhl dks fo'oLr lw=ksa ls Kkr gqvk gS fd eqyfteku jktdh; vf/koäk ds ikl dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr gksus ls in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, vuSfrd :i ls eqyftekuksa us dsl Mk;jh esa yxs gq, vly djhc 125 nLrkost dks fudky fy;s rFkk dsl Mk;jh esa Hkh dkV NkaV dj fn;k gS rkfd eqLrxhl dk dsl detksj gks tkos vksj eqdnesa esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dj lds bu lHkh dk;Zokfg;ksa ls ifjoknh l mlds ifjokj dks U;k; ugha fey ik jgk gS ftls ifjoknh dks xgjk lnek yxk gS rFkk ifjoknh o mldk ifjokj Hkz"Vkpkj ds f'kdkj gks jgs gSa QthZ dk;Zokgh dh lwpuk izkFkZuk i= }kjk Fkkuk oS'kkyh uxj ns nh gSA vkfn fjiksVZ ij eq-ua- 330@2011 /kkjk 167] 197] 198] 218] 219] 420] 469] 466] 467] 468] 471] 47] 120 ch IPC esa iathc) dj rQrh'k 'kq: dh xbZ nkSjkus rQrh'k eqdnek esa eqLrxhl eqdnek ds c;kukr xokgku fy;s x;s eqdnek ls lEcfU/kr fjdkMZ izkIr fd;k x;kA rFkk eqdnek gktk ds vkjksihx.kksa ls rQrh'k djuk 'ks"k gS efYtekuksa ls iwNrkN dj eqdnek gktk esa urhtk is'k fd;k tk;sxk pkgh xbZ rF;kRed fjiksVZ Jheku~ dh lsok esa is'k gSA Hkonh; Fkkukf/kdkjh Fkkuk v'kksd uxj t;iqj 'kgj ¼nf{k.k½** 8. Mr. Rajendra Yadav, Government Advocate and Public Prosecutor and other advocates assisting him including the other Public Prosecutors and the President of the Bar Association have stated that the Government Advocate and the Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government has every power to call for the case diaries from the Police Stations as and when any petitions relating to bails and misc. petitions for quashing of the FIR and for fair investigation in the case are filed. They have invited my attention towards section 301 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been provided that the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, who are in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. 9. The counsel Mr. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, who is Government Advocate and Public Prosecutor stated that the Judicial Magistrate without looking to the fact that the Public Prosecutors are authorised and even without any permission or authority they have power to appear in the court and call for the case diaries from the Police Stations and in order to tarnise the reputation of the Public Prosecutor the complainant has unnecessarily filed a complaint against him and the same should be quashed and set aside in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Public Prosecutor stated that Pankaj Gaur filed criminal misc. petition before this court and only in that case the diary was called. Without calling any diary the case could not be defended for the State Government. The complaint, and the criminal proceedings taken against him and the FIR No. 330/2011 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar,Jaipur, which does not disclose any cause of action should be quashed. 10. Mr. J.K. Gupta, earlier appeared before this court and argued that the petitioner filed the misc. petition in order to get fair trial and proper investigation in the FIR No. 330 of 2011. Now he is not present before this court when the case was taken up in the second round along with the criminal misc. petition filed by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Public Prosecutor and Government Advocate for quashing of the FIR registered against him in the Police Station on a complaint filed by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate No.11 Jaipur Metropolitan. petition filed by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Public Prosecutor and Government Advocate for quashing of the FIR registered against him in the Police Station on a complaint filed by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate No.11 Jaipur Metropolitan. The Judicial Magistrate without looking into the facts mentioned in the complaint sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Vaishali Nagar and thereafter to the Police Station Ashok Nagar. 11. Mr. Man Singh, Sub Inspector of the Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur was directed to appear before this court. He appeared before this court and this court asked him question whether any case is made out or not against Mr. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Public Prosecutor of this Court as per the facts mentioned in the FIR. Mr. Man Singh, Sub Inspector after reading the FIR before this court stated that no case is made out against the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Public Prosecutor and others. He further stated that every day the case diaries are called by the Public Prosecutors and they have a right to call the case diaries and even without authority from the Government defend the cases in the High Court. This court further asked Mr. Man Singh, Sub Inspector that the case diary in the FIR No.330/2011 is intact or not to which he replied that the case diary is intact. 12. This court further asked the question to Shri Hari Singh, Constable who has brought the case diary of FIR No. 337 of 2011 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar that whether the case diary was intact or not. He replied that the case is diary is complete and intact. 13. This court further asked question to Shri Man Sigh, whether you have made fair and proper investigation in the case or not. He has stated that he has made investigation fairly and properly and further stated that no case is made out as per the investigation made by him against the Public Prosecutor and others. He has further stated that from reading of the FIR and the facts disclosed in the FIR does not disclose any offence and also disclose any cause of action and he will submit FR before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 15. Section 301 Cr.P.C. reads as under : 301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 15. Section 301 Cr.P.C. reads as under : 301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. (1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. (2) If in any such case, any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.” 16. Thus it is clear that the Public Prosecutor has authority to appear before the court without any written authority from the Government before any court in which the case is pending. The allegation in the FIR was made against Shri Rajendra Kumar Yadav that there is no criminal misc. petition pending before this court and the case number of the misc. petition which was mentioned in the request of the Incharge Police Station was that the case diary was called in S.B.Criminal Misc. petition No. 1690 of 2011, which is registered in the name of “Abid Hussain.” A query was made by this court on the computer whether any such criminal misc. petition was filed by Pankaj Gaur or not before this court. On query the data made available is enclosed with the file of this case. 17. It is clear from the data that Pankaj Gaur filed S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1956 of 2011 in FIR No. 337 of 2011 of Police Station Vaishalai Nagar and not S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1690 of 2011 as mentioned in the letter of the SHO of the Police Station and in the complaint and in the FIR. In the S.B.Criminal Misc. petition No. 1956 of 2011 which was registered herein at Jaipur Bench on 28.7.2011, the case diary was called by the office of Public Prosecutor in the Rajasthan High Court and unnecessarily in the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.11 facts have been mentioned against Shri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Government Advocate and Public Prosecutor without even calling any query from the office of the Public Prosecutor by the Judicial Magistrate. The complaint or the FIR does not disclose any such offence and also does not disclose any cause of action, which are made in the FIR or complaint made against the Public Prosecutor and others. The Public Prosecutor is fully empowered to call for the case diary from the Police Stations in each and every case in which proceedings have been initiated in the High Court. In my view the FIR/ complaint does not disclose any offence against the Public Prosecutor which was rightly pointed out by Mr. Man Singh, Sub Inspector, thus the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. 18. In the result, the misc. petition No.69 of 2012 filed by Rajendra Kumar Yadav, Govt. Advocate and Pubic Prosecutor, for quashing of the FIR No. 330/2011 Police Station Ashok Nagar is allowed and the criminal proceed-ings pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.11 against him and the FIR No. 330/2011 Police Station Ashok Nagar is quashed. Since the FIR No. 330 of 2011 has been quashed the misc. petition No.60 of 2012 filed by the petitioner Ram Swaroop Sharma for fair and proper investigation stands dismissed.