JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred with the prayer to quash and set aside the complaint bearing Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2011 filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by respondent No.2 on 18.11.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 2(a), (c), 7, 8 and 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that respondent No.2, who is the original complainant filed one private complaint in the Hon’ble Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Ahmedabad City on 18.11.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 2(a), (c), 7, 8 and 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicants. It is stated by respondent No.2 in his complaint that he is a member of a registered trust named Ahmedabad Education Society since around 1962, and therefore, he has right to object, dispute, etc. the dispute raised by respondent No.2 in his complaint relates to the election of the above referred trust for the year 2006-2007. with regard to the activities, etc carried out in relation to the performance of the election referred herein above respondent No.2 had alleged that applicants and others have engaged themselves in grave irregularity to get benefit out of election. It is also alleged that applicants and others have prepared false electoral rolls to get advantage in election and it is also further stated that by doing the same applicants and others have tried to ignore, etc., orders passed by the learned Charity Commissioner and has also tried to ignore the authority of an independent body of learned Shri P.J. Dholakia Saheb, etc. It is also prayed in the complaint that Hon’ble Court may send the complaint for investigation u/S. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the economic cell of CID Crime Branch, Gandhinagar. On receiving the complaint the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 18.11.2011 has sent the above stated complaint for investigation as prayed for to be carried out by Additional Director General of Police, CID Crime & Railways situated at Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. On receiving the complaint the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 18.11.2011 has sent the above stated complaint for investigation as prayed for to be carried out by Additional Director General of Police, CID Crime & Railways situated at Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. On passing of this order the complaint came to be registered as Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2011. 3. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Rahul R Dholakia, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Moxa K. Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Mr. P.K. Pancholi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. It was argued by Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2, who is original complainant has filed one private complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Ahmedabad City on 18.11.2011 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 2(A)(C), 7, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 against the present applicants. It is related to the election of the Ahmedabad Education Society for the year 2006-2007. As per the averments made in the complaint with regard to the activities carried out in relation to the performance of election. Applicants and others have engaged themselves in grave irregularity to take benefit out of the election and they have prepared false electoral rolls to get advantage in election and by doing the same they have tried to ignore, orders passed by learned Charity Commissioner and ignored the authority of an independent body of Shri P.J. Dholakia. That, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a routine and casual manner passed an order of investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, which is a non speaking order. That there is total non application of mind on the part of learned Magistrate. That, on the same ground, allegations made in another complaint relating to irregularities and performance of election for the year 2006-07, was filed by one Shri Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Mehta before the Navrangpura Police Station on 1.12.2006. During the investigation, respondent No.2, the original complainant was also interrogated and his statement was recorded. That, the above said Mahesh Dhirajlal Mehta and respondent No.2 filed one Special Criminal Application No. 83 of 2010 before this Court on 1.12.2006 and on 11.03.2010, this Special Criminal Application was disposed of, by this Court. During the investigation, respondent No.2, the original complainant was also interrogated and his statement was recorded. That, the above said Mahesh Dhirajlal Mehta and respondent No.2 filed one Special Criminal Application No. 83 of 2010 before this Court on 1.12.2006 and on 11.03.2010, this Special Criminal Application was disposed of, by this Court. The statements of applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 7 were recorded by police and according to police authorities no offence was made out. That, the complaint in respect of similar allegations was also dealt with by the learned Charity Commissioner and also by this Court. The same are referred by respondent No.2 in the impugned complaint. That, various objections were also filed by respondent No.2 before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner against the Change Report No. 416 of 2007 in respect of the said election, wherein, respondent No.2 produced said Mr. Mahesh Dhirajlal Mehta as his witness, and both of them were thoroughly examined. The said Change Report was approved after rejecting all the objections by the learned Charity Commissioner. That, respondent No.2 has also suppressed earlier complaints as well as civil litigation, which are decided in favour of Ahmedabad Education Society and its trustees. Just to harass the applicants, respondent No.2 has filed the impugned complaint by suppressing all the above facts, thus, abusing the process of law. It is further argued that respondent No.2 has filed another written complaint on 31.03.2011 to the Director of Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmedabad, which was also submitted to the Police Inspector of Navrangpura Police Station. That, the said written complaint was also on the same allegations and respondent No.2 has also suppressed the fact that the impugned complaint is successive complaint with similar averments. That, the above said second complaint was also disposed of as it was already investigated in accordance with law for the same allegations. That, no offence what so ever was disclosed through such complaint and the Investigating Agency has submitted its report on 23.08.2011. That, second complaint filed by the complainant having the same subject matter as the first complaint against the accused is nothing but a tool of harassment and miscarriage of justice. That, in the detailed report filed by the police no criminal offence is made out. That, second complaint filed by the complainant having the same subject matter as the first complaint against the accused is nothing but a tool of harassment and miscarriage of justice. That, in the detailed report filed by the police no criminal offence is made out. That, the third successive complaint framing the same grievance by respondent No.2 is not tenable in the eyes of law, as it does not disclose foundation of new facts. That, without any basis respondent No.2 has made false allegations of forgery and cheating in his complaint. That, there is no averment in the entire allegation as to who has prepared a false ballot papers. Some submissions of allegations with respect to forgery or cheating would not be sufficient enough to constitute cognizable offence or that can be connected with the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ultimately, it was requested by Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants to quash and set aside the complaint being Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2011 and order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and to quash all proceedings in connection with this inquiry by allowing this application. 5. On the other side, Mr. P.K. Pancholi, learned advocate for respondent No.2, strongly and strenuously opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and submitted that respondent No.2 has filed his affidavitinreply. That this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not maintenable as the investigation is pending before the concerned Investigating Agency. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, has not exercised any judicial powers but on presentation of the complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C directed the C.I.D (Crime) and Railways to initiate the said complaint under the powers vested in the trial Court under Section 156(3) of the Code. That, the trial Court has never taken cognizance of the offence nor has initiated any action of proceedings against the applicants, and therefore, this application under Section 482 of the code is not maintenable. That, Investigating Officer shall take necessary steps after collecting all the materials by filing charge sheet under Section 173 of the code. That, at the stage of investigation, neither the magistrate, nor any Court has power, authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the powers of investigation of the police. That, Investigating Officer shall take necessary steps after collecting all the materials by filing charge sheet under Section 173 of the code. That, at the stage of investigation, neither the magistrate, nor any Court has power, authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the powers of investigation of the police. He has further argued that under the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, High Court should not, except any rarest of rare cases, interfere with the investigation in progress for the cognizable offence. That, this Court under the inherent powers cannot at this stage, apprise the evidence likely to be collected by the police during the investigation and at this stage, it is premature application. That, the trial Court has not committed any illegality which would enable this Court to quash the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, it was requested by him to dismiss the application. 6. Ms. Moxa Thakker, learned APP for respondent No.1, has supported the arguments advanced by Mr. P.K. Pancholi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and argued that since the investigation has not yet begun and earlier authorities have not collected any evidence in the case, the entire facts are incomplete and in such circumstances it cannot be said that whether any offence is committed by the applicants or not and quashing of the complaint and order passed by the learned Magistrate would amount to nixing the prosecution at a premature stage. Hence, it was requested by her to dismiss the application. 7. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has produced and relied upon the following authorities of the Apex Court:- 1. In the case of Suresh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, reported in 1997 (2) GLH 356 , 2. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 , and 3. In the case of T T Antony vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 . 8. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 , and 3. In the case of T T Antony vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 . 8. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the learned advocates and learned APP, documentary evidence produced on record, it appears that on presentation of the complaint by respondent No 2, it appears that on presentation of the complaint by respondent No.2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad, by his order dated 18.11.2011 directed the State C.I.D (Crime) & Railways to investigate the said complaint under the powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. Here this Court would like to refer to the decision in the case of Sureshkumar Gupta Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 (1) GLR 1570. It is held by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat that erring magistrate while passing the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, 1973, shall record a short order disclosing the reason why he needs investigation under Section 156(3) of the code, through police agency and why he is unable to try himself. Prima facie, it appears from the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, below the complaint that no reasons are disclosed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, why he needs investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code through Police Agency. Further, he has not passed any reasons why he is unable to try himself. The High Court of Gujarat in this case has further held that:- “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – S. 156(3) - Indiscriminate exercise of power of the Magistrate to order investigation - When a complaint is received, Magistrate has to notionally decide and has to come to a tentative decision on application of mind as to whether evidence to prove case can be procured by the Court itself or whether the complainant cannot produce it without the help of Police Agency In number of cases it may not be necessary to search any place or to seize any thing or to proceed to the spot – Magistrate has not to do the job of the postman to order investigation, as soon as the complaint is received”. 9. 9. From the order, it transpires that it is not a speaking order and in a routine and in casual manner he has passed order of investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. He has not considered the legal and/or factual requirement why he was unable to try himself and instead of it sent the complaint under Section 156(3). It appears that, there is total non-application of mind on the part of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 18.11.2011. Now, if we examine the averments, allegations narrated in the impugned complaint they are related to irregularities etc., done and carried out during the process of performance of election of the trust for the year 2006-2007. Here, this Court would like to examine the complaint filed by Shri Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Mehta at annexure-‘B’, who is shown to be the partner of Shri Vijay Saw Mill before Navrangpura Police Station on 19.12.2006. It also transpires that during the course of investigation of the said complaint, respondent No.2 was also interrogated by the Navrangpura Police and he himself along with present respondent No.2 filed one Special Criminal Application No. 83 of 2010 before this Court. On the very same date, this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 11.3.2010, in which there was a reference of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 addressing to the Police Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad city, against the present applicants. Reference of the said complaint was also made by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 83 of 2010 being investigated and in this background the application filed by Shri Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Mehta as well as respondent No.2 was disposed of. It also appears that complaint dated 19.12.2006, at annexure ‘B’ is the complaint, wherein, irregularities narrated and stated in the impugned complaint at annexure ‘A’ herein are almost same and similar. Complaint produced at Annexure ‘D’ of Special Criminal Application No. 83 of 2010 was already disposed of by Navrangpura Police and according to police authorities and investigating machineries no offence was made out, what so ever, and the irregularities etc., stated in the complaint. It is impressed that respondent No.2 original complainant has mischievously suppressed these facts in his complaint and has filed the said complaint stating about the same issue in the present complaint. It is impressed that respondent No.2 original complainant has mischievously suppressed these facts in his complaint and has filed the said complaint stating about the same issue in the present complaint. Therefore, it can be said that the second complaint amounts to abuse of process of law. From the record, it transpires that Navrangpura Police Station has also filed its report on 05.02.2010, which is produced vide annexure-‘C’. Respondent No.2 has also suppressed the above referred complaint produced at Annexure-‘B’ herein. He has also suppressed that he had also filed various objections before the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner against the Change Report No. 416 of 2007 (New No. 126 of 2011) in respect of the said application. It also appears that respondent No.2 had produced Shri Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Mehta as his witness and both of them were thoroughly examined. The said Change Report was approved after rejecting all objections/ allegations. It is clear that respondent No.2 has suppressed similar complaints as well as other civil litigations all of which were decided in favour of the Ahmedabad Education Society and its trustees. With a view to harass the applicants, respondent No.2 has filed the impugned complaint by suppressing all the above facts, and thereby, abusing the process of law. From the documents produced on record, it also appears that respondent No.2 had also filed another written complaint on 31.03.2011 addressed to the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad, which was also submitted to the Police Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, which was sent to different high ranking police officials which is produced at Annexure ‘D’. It transpires from the averments made in the above said complaint given to the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, which is almost verbatim of the impugned complaint. Respondent No.2 has also suppressed the fact that impugned complaint is a successive complaint with similar allegations and averments made in the earlier written complaint at annexure-‘D’ filed by him and annexure-‘B’ filed by Maheshbhai D Mehta. It also transpires from the record that the above said complaint made to the Director of Anti Corruption Bureau as well as Police Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station and others was also disposed of as the facts, averments, allegations etc., narrated in the written complaint were found to be almost same, similar as like above stated complaint produced at Annexure-‘B’ filed by Shri Maheshbhai. As per the report filed by the Navrangpura Police Station after thoroughly investigating the offence, no offence, what so ever, disclosed was found. The said report dated 23.08.2011 in connection with complaint filed by respondent No.2 addressed to different authorities is produced at Annexure-‘E’. whatever the allegations are made in the concerned complaint by respondent No.2 about irregularities done and carried out during the year 2006-2007, were dealt with by the learned Charity Commissioner and different orders were passed in other proceedings. Prima facie, it is impressed that respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned complaint with an ulterior motive by suppressing all the facts to misuse the process of law and with a view to harass the applicants. The applicants have produced a copy of order dated 18.09.2010 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nadiad, below Change Report No. 126 of 2010 (old No. 416 of 2007) at Annexure-‘G’. The said order was challenged by the Society and respondent No.2 by way of preferring an appeal No. 45 of 2010 and appeal No. 63 of 2010 respectively before the learned Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat. The learned Charity Commissioner on 23.06.2011 was pleased to allow the appeal of the Society and set aside for directions and observations issued by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nadiad by accepting the Change Report and further dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2. It also reveals from the record that respondent No.2 being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nadiad, dated 23.06.2011, preferred Civil Application No. 909 of 2011 before the Court of City Civil at Ahmedabad which was pending as per the averments. At present, it can be said that process of election held during the year 2006-2007 was legal and proper and no irregularity was committed by the Office of the Charity Commissioner and pending before the Court of City Civil at Ahmedabad were also suppressed by respondent No.2 in the impugned complaint produced at Annexure-‘A’. From the averments made in the impugned complaint at Annexure-‘A’, there is no averment as to who has prepared false ballot papers. Mere submissions or allegations with respect to forgery or cheating would not be sufficient enough to constitute any cognizable offence. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. From the averments made in the impugned complaint at Annexure-‘A’, there is no averment as to who has prepared false ballot papers. Mere submissions or allegations with respect to forgery or cheating would not be sufficient enough to constitute any cognizable offence. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., reported in 1992 (1) SCC 335 has broadly set out the circumstances in which this High Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal & Ors.,(Supra) following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration, wherein, the extra ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just condition that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just condition that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. In case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors with civil appeal No. 4066/2001 Damodaran P & Ors vs. State of Kerala & Ors, with Criminal Appeals Nos. 690-91 of 2001 in the case of State of Kerala & Another vs. Revada Chandrashekhar & Ors, it was held by the Apex Court, that there cannot be second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or some occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Only information about commission of cognizable offence which is first entered in station diary by Officer Incharge of the police station can be recorded as FIR under Section 154. Any such subsequent informations will be covered by Section 162. After registering the FIR and commencing investigation, registering of second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident and crime and making of fresh investigation pursuant thereto would be irregular, which would call for an interference by High Court under Articles 226/227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C interference by Supreme Court under Article 136 with fresh investigation to prevent abuse of statutory power of investigation or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Herein, in the instant case, respondent No.2 has suppressed material facts of lodging previous complaint before the Navrangpura Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmedabad and all the civil litigation before the Officer of the learned Charity Commissioner, report submitted by the police twice and orders passed by the office of the Charity Commissioner. 11. Herein, in the instant case, respondent No.2 has suppressed material facts of lodging previous complaint before the Navrangpura Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmedabad and all the civil litigation before the Officer of the learned Charity Commissioner, report submitted by the police twice and orders passed by the office of the Charity Commissioner. 11. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,(Supra), it was held that remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not of routine nature, but, exercise of power therein requires application of judicial mind. Magistrate exercising said powers must remain vigilant with regard to nature of allegations made in the application and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. In a proper case, the Magistrate can verify the truth and veracity of allegations made, having regard to the nature thereof. Furthermore, it is now mandatory for Section 156(3) application to be supported by an affidavit. Power under Section 156(3) cannot be invoked by litigant at his own whim to harass others. It can be invoked only by a principled and really aggrieved citizen approaching the Court with clean hands. 12. In view of this aforesaid analysis, this Court is satisfied to quash and set aside the complaint being Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2011 and order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 18.11.2011 and quash all the subsequent proceedings thereto, if any by allowing this application. Hence, the application being Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 16532 of 2011, is allowed. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. 13. The applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17054 of 2011 has prayed to permit him to be joined as party respondent No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16532 of 2011, pending before this Court in the interest of justice for the grounds raised and narrated in this application. None has remained present, while calling out this application at the time of arguments. This Criminal Misc. Application (For Joining Party) No. 17054 of 2011, is dismissed in view of order passed in the main application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 16532 of 2011. Notice is discharged in this application.