JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jasdan in N.C. Case No.29 of 2014 dated 10.12.2015 whereby the offence under section 171E of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and summons was ordered to be issued. 2. The facts in brief are as under; In connection with the Bye-Elections to the Legislative Assembly scheduled on 30.04.2014, the District Magistrate had constituted two teams, i.e. Flying Squad and Static Surveillance Team, for maintaining a watch over the election process. The complainant herein was a member of the Flying Squad. It appears that on 22.04.2014 the petitioner herein, who was nominated as a star campaigner by the political party – Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) arrived at Jasdan at around 1310 hrs. in a Helicopter Party for the purpose of canvassing a candidate belonging to the said political party. At that time, the members of the aforesaid two teams were present at the Helipad. It appears that the petitioner, along with his security personnel, got into a car belonging to one of the party workers and thereafter, left for the factory of one Gajendrabhai Ramani situated at GIDC, Jasdan. As the teams had received a secret information that the petitioner was carrying unaccounted cash with him, the two teams had followed the car in which the petitioner had left the Helipad and they also reached the factory. The petitioner was asked to open the suitcase, which he had carried along with him. On inspection, the team found cash amount to the tune of Rs.2.75 Lacs inside the suitcase. As the petitioner was found to be carrying cash in excess of the limit prescribed by the Election Commission of India at the relevant point of time, necessary inquiry was made. However, as the petitioner could not provide satisfactory explanation, the amount was seized after following due procedure. 2.1 It was alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner had carried said amount with a view to malign the election process or to entice the voters or for any other mala fide intention and therefore, N.C. complaint No.29 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner with Jasdan Police Station for offence punishable under section 171E of the IPC. 2.1 It was alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner had carried said amount with a view to malign the election process or to entice the voters or for any other mala fide intention and therefore, N.C. complaint No.29 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner with Jasdan Police Station for offence punishable under section 171E of the IPC. In connection with the said complaint, the investigating officer filed report dated 01.11.2015 before the Court of learned Magistrate at Jasdan to the effect that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 directing registration of N.C. complaint against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Rajesh Gidiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner herein was nominated as one of the star campaigners for the purpose of campaigning for BJP candidates for the Bye-Elections to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly scheduled on 30.04.2014. For the purpose of campaigning, the petitioner had reached Jasdan, District Rajkot, during which time, the petitioner was carrying the suitcase containing cash to the tune of Rs.2.75 Lacs. After carrying out necessary investigation, the investigating officer filed report stating that no offence under section 171E of IPC was made out against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the statements of the security personnel, who had accompanied the petitioner to the trip and also of the son of the petitioner – Divyesh Parsottambhai Solanki, were recorded. It was submitted that the cash amount belonged to the son of the petitioner, named Divyesh Parsottambhai Solanki and that to substantiate such claim, the relevant bank statement of the son of the petitioner was also produced before the investigating officer. It was, accordingly, urged that the Court below seriously erred in directing registration of complaint under section 171E of IPC. 4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner was found to be carrying cash amount in excess of what was prescribed by the Election Commission India. Further, the petitioner could not provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the said amount of cash. Hence, the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned order. It was, accordingly, urged that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. Further, the petitioner could not provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the said amount of cash. Hence, the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned order. It was, accordingly, urged that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. Though served, none appears on behalf of the original complainant. It appears that the petitioner was nominated as a campaigner by a particular political party for the purpose of campaigning for the candidates of such party for the Bye-Elections of the Legislative Assembly scheduled in the year 2014. On 22.04.2014 the petitioner appears to have arrived at Jasdan, District Rajkot in a Helicopter for the purpose of campaigning. On the basis of secret information that the petitioner was carrying cash in excess of the limit prescribed by the Election Commission of India, the Flying Squad and the Static Surveillance Team constituted for the purpose of monitoring the election process followed the petitioner up to the place where he was going. The petitioner was asked to open his suitcase and it was found that there was cash amount to the tune of Rs.2.75 Lacs. As the petitioner was a star campaigner of the political party concerned and was found to be carrying cash in excess of the limit of Rs.1 Lac prescribed by the Election Commission of India, inquiry was made regarding the source of the amount; however, the petitioner was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation at the relevant time and therefore, the amount came to be seized. 6. During the course of investigation, the statements of the petitioner, his son and the security personnel, who had accompanied the petitioner during the trip in question, were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner had also produced relevant documentary evidence in support of his case, including the bank statement of M/s. Meera Logistics owned by Divyesh Parsottambhai Solanki, the son of the petitioner, held with HDFC Bank, Bhavnagar Branch. As per the statement given by the petitioner and his son before the Investigating Officer, the cash amount in question belonged to the son of the petitioner and the petitioner was carrying the said amount at the relevant time for the purpose of delivering it to his son at Bhavnagar for his business purpose. As per the statement given by the petitioner and his son before the Investigating Officer, the cash amount in question belonged to the son of the petitioner and the petitioner was carrying the said amount at the relevant time for the purpose of delivering it to his son at Bhavnagar for his business purpose. The petitioner had placed reliance upon the bank statement, particularly, the bank entry dated 11.04.2014 and 12.04.2014, which reflects that an amount of Rs.6 Lacs and Rs.2,09,570/- respectively were withdrawn from the business account of M/s. Meera Logistics owned by the son of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner herein is a politician and was a Cabinet Minister in the Government of Gujarat at the relevant time. Being a politician, the petitioner has to take care of two images – one image as a common litigant before the Court and the other as a political figure before the general public. As a common litigant, the rights of the petitioner are guaranteed under the Constitution and as a public figure, his rights have to be examined keeping in mind the fact that he is a representative of the people. The Court has to balance the interest of the petitioner – one as a common litigant and the other as a representative of the people. Citizens view corruption in political life more serious and onerous as compared to private life. Such charges of corruption have serious impact on voting behaviour during election times. Candidates running for election, under a cloud of scandal, are more vulnerable since citizens do not clearly separate public from private roles. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ingredients of the offence of “bribery” as defined under section 171B of IPC are made out against the petitioner. Political environment plays an important part in shaping popular understanding of what is corrupt. The Court has to examine whether the alleged wrong-doings would fall within the definition of “bribery” under section 171B of IPC and whether the provisions of section 171E of IPC are attracted in a given case. 8. The Court below has ordered registration of complaint under section 171E of IPC, which provides with the punishment for “bribery”. Bribery is defined under section 171B of IPC. It reads thus: “171B. 8. The Court below has ordered registration of complaint under section 171E of IPC, which provides with the punishment for “bribery”. Bribery is defined under section 171B of IPC. It reads thus: “171B. Bribery.- (1) Whoever – (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other reason any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.” 8.1 The punishment for bribery is provided under section 171E of IPC. It reads thus: “171E. Punishment for bribery. – Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only. Explanation. – “Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.” 8.2 A plain reading of the definition of “bribery” as provided under section 171B of IPC makes it clear that the person concerned has to give a gratification to somebody with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right. In sub-section (2) therein, it has been provided that a person who offers or agrees to give or offers or attempts to procure a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification and in sub-section (3) therein, it has been provided that a person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward. Thus, the basic ingredient for attracting the offence of “bribery” is the “giving” or “acceptance” or “offering” of any of gratification. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the cash in question was found from the suitcase of the petitioner, which the security personnel accompanying the petitioner had carried along with him. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had either given or had offered the said amount as bribe to someone or had accepted the same from anyone much less any evidence to show that the petitioner had given or had offered any gratification by way of cash amount to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ingredients of the offence punishable under section 171B of IPC are made out in this case. 9. The impugned order passed by the Court below is without any basis and is based on assumptions and presumptions. No cogent reasons have been assigned by the Court below while directing registration of complaint under section 171E of IPC. It appears that the usage of modern banking facilities like NEFT and RTGS by the son of the petitioner, as is reflected from the bank statement produced by the petitioner, has led the Court below to conclude that the petitioner was carrying the cash amount in question for utilizing it as “bribe”. However, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, no ingredients of the offence of “bribery” are present in this case. However, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, no ingredients of the offence of “bribery” are present in this case. Further, the Court below has also observed that no oral or written objection has been filed by either the election officer or by the complainant to the police report dated 01.11.2015 wherein it was stated no offence as alleged was made out against the petitioner. 10. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. SCC 335, the Apex Court has dealt in detail the provisions of Section 482 of the Code and the power of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings or the FJ.R. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by the High Court in the exercise of their inherent powers to quash the criminal proceeding: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above. we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 F.I.R. 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. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 H. R. 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 conclusion 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 male tide 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." 11. Considering the material on record and the principle rendered by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), this Court finds this to be a fit case wherein the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised to meet with the ends of justice. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jasdan in N.C. Case No.29 of 2014 dated 10.12.2015 and the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.