JUDGMENT : 1. The instant miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner-Mohan Singh Chatha S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.165/2018 registered at Police Station Chunawad, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 436 & 457 of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof qua the petitioner. 2. The concise facts that gave rise to the lodging of the FIR in the present matter are that the complainant approached the police on 06.09.2018 in order to initiate criminal proceedings against five named and 10-12 unnamed persons alleging that when he and his family were fast asleep, they heard noises of crackers being burst at around 02.00 a.m. He came out of his house and saw that the Bolero Car bearing vehicle No. RJ-13 UA 0269 which was parked in the garage was on fire. He and his family members tried to douse the fire but the car had burnt completely by then. When they stepped outside the gate of their house, they found a bucket filled with petrol fuel along with a cloth soaked with petrol. A jerrican cap which was reeking of petrol was also lying nearby and two empty bottles of beer were also found lying on the opposite side of the main gate of the house. Another empty beer bottle was found lying behind the burnt vehicle. It is further alleged that there were deep footprints of some people who would have entered the house by climbing over the wall. It is further expressed in the FIR that the complainant's younger brother was married to one Sarvjeet Kaur; they got a divorce and his brother married some one else on 03.09.2018. On the same day, i.e. 03.09.2018, it is alleged that some suspicious people came on two vehicles and fired two shots near their house, thus, the complainant felt that enraged by the marriage, the sons of Sarvjeet Kaur and their companions set his vehicle on fire. An FIR came to be lodged for commission of offences under Sections 457 and 436 of IPC. An FIR came to be lodged for commission of offences under Sections 457 and 436 of IPC. During investigation, the police reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was the person behind the conspiracy and instigated the other co-accused persons to commit the crime as his sister was involved in a matrimonial fallout with the brother of the complainant, thus, the police made a case against the petitioner under Section 457, 436 and 120-B of IPC. 3. Shri Ravi Bhansali, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D.L. Rawla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that although the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR and the matter came to be lodged in the year 2018 but subsequently, due to inimical relationship and acting with an ulterior object to spite the petitioner, an endeavour has been made by the complainant party in connivance with the police to drag the name of the petitioner in this matter unnecessarily. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a Canadian citizen and has been residing there since 1996. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in Canada and did not visit India. The petitioner visited the country twice, once between 26.05.2018 & 14.06.2018 and another time, he visited India between 30.03.2019 to 11.04.2019 but nothing came up in the investigation against the petitioner till then. His arrival from Canada and departure from India for Canada is found in the government record. 4. It was submitted that the FIR came to be registered on 06.09.2018 at the Police Station Chunawad and the petitioner visited India after six months of the alleged incident but no attempt was made to interrogate him for the purpose of his involvement in alleged commission of crime. He further submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of incorrect facts and the complainant himself expressed doubt that the alleged incident was caused because of a matrimonial dispute between one Mastan Singh and Sarvjeet Kaur, thus, the petitioner has been implicated in this matter falsely by virtue of being their relative. Earlier, on two occasions, a warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act was sought by the police against the petitioner but the learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer on both the occasions. Earlier, on two occasions, a warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act was sought by the police against the petitioner but the learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer on both the occasions. a warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act was sought for the third time and the same was issued without there being any material change in the circumstances of the case vide order dated 20.11.2020. Despite that, the investigating agency, under the instructions of the complainant, is hell-bent upon apprehending the petitioner and malign his reputation. Thereafter, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC and vide order dated 27.01.2021, a co-ordinate bench of this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation before the I.O. Though the representation was made before the I.O. and he could have interrogated the petitioner either virtually or on the basis of the representation submitted before him but no proceedings were conducted in pursuance of the order dated 27.01.2021, thus, in such circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside. 5. It was also submitted that a simple reading of the FIR No. 165/2018 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned FIR) reveals that the story of the prosecution is completely based on conjectures and surmises which was cooked up later as a second thought with an underlying motive. It was further submitted that the presence of the accused is a necessary requirement for commission of offences under Sections 436 and 457 IPC and it cannot be established that the accused-petitioner was present in the country at that point of time rather he was in Canada. The ingredients required to establish commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC are lacking in this case and thus, any further proceedings in this matter would lead to injustice being caused to the petitioner. 6. On the contrary, Shri Mukhtiyar Khan, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Uma Kant Vyas, submitted that the petitioner is the key-conspirator of the incident. The allegation against the petitioner is that he ignited the issue and incited the other co-accused present in India to commit the offence. 7. Shri Bhanwar Lal, Dy.S.P. Sri Ganganagar, who had been personally conducting investigation in the matter, admitted this fact that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not in India. The allegation against the petitioner is that he ignited the issue and incited the other co-accused present in India to commit the offence. 7. Shri Bhanwar Lal, Dy.S.P. Sri Ganganagar, who had been personally conducting investigation in the matter, admitted this fact that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not in India. He admitted that no call-data record, text messages, conversation in any mode or on any platform are available with the police. 8. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 9. It is an admitted and undisputed situation that the petitioner was not in the country in the month of September, 2018 when the alleged incident took place. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of doubts and these doubts have been cast upon Jasveer Singh, Narjeet Singh, Palvindra Singh Barad, Vicky Dhillon, Lali and others and the name of the petitioner is not reflected therein. No doubt has been raised regarding his involvement in the incident. The petitioner is a relative of the accused party. He has been residing in Canada since a long time. There is no evidence, even in the slightest, to show any direct or indirect nexus between the petitioner and the alleged crime. 10. It is as plain as a pikestaff that for being booked for committing house-trespass or house-breaking by the night as per Section 457 IPC in order to commit an offence and for committing mischief by fire or other explosive substance with an intent to destroy property as per Section 436 IPC, the person against whom such allegations have been levelled needs to be present at the place of incident to commit both these crimes. When the petitioner was clearly not present in the country, then it is out of question that he was a participant in commission of offences as per Sections 457 and 436 of IPC. 11. Moving on to the discussion regarding Section 120-B of IPC, it is important to point out that in order to book a person with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC, the ingredients essential to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy are that there must be an agreement of mind between the two or more persons and that must be in relation of committing an illegal act or an act done by illegal means. Thus, having agreement is regarded as sine-qua-non of criminal conspiracy. Thus, having agreement is regarded as sine-qua-non of criminal conspiracy. In the present case, it is very much evident from the record that no such agreement between the petitioner and the other accused persons has been found to exist. In absence of any connecting evidence so as to establish the fact of talks, conversation, letters, signatures etc. between the two, it cannot be presumed that the accused-petitioner was also involved in commission of alleged incident. 12. Section 120-B of IPC prescribes the punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy. The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120-A of IPC as an agreement according to which if two or more individuals agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but is done by employing the use of illegal means. Sections 120-A and 120-B of IPC are reproduced below for easy reference: 120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.— When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done - (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.— (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court had discussed the provisions relating to criminal conspiracy in detail in the landmark case of Kehar Singh and Ors. Vs. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court had discussed the provisions relating to criminal conspiracy in detail in the landmark case of Kehar Singh and Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883 and it was held therein that agreement by two or more individuals to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is quintessential to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. The acts of the parties need to reflect clear concurrence between the parties and irrelevant, isolated acts, even if placed strategically, cannot be understood to be in coherence if they are not conspicuous enough or lack clarity or do not form a complete chain so as to prove the offence of conspiracy against the accused person. 14. In the matter of Rajiv Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has discussed the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. The relevant paragraph of the above-mentioned judgment is as follows: 44. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself. 15. In a recent ruling passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parveen @ Sonu Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1571 of 2021), it was not found safe to convict the accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy when there was no evidence available on record except confessional statements of co-accused unaccompanied by any other corroborative evidence. 15. In a recent ruling passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parveen @ Sonu Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1571 of 2021), it was not found safe to convict the accused for the offence of criminal conspiracy when there was no evidence available on record except confessional statements of co-accused unaccompanied by any other corroborative evidence. In this matter, the Hon'ble Division Bench acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 07.12.2021 and it was held that the existence of agreement between the parties for the purpose of committing an unlawful act has to be present to prove the charge of conspiracy within the scope of Section 120-B IPC. The relevant paragraph of the afore-said judgment is as follows: "12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused. ..." 16. It is apparent from the reading and interpretation of the statutory stipulation under Section 120-B IPC as well as from the various judicial pronouncements of the top Court, some of which have been discussed above, that firstly, the principal constituent or element required to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC is agreement between the parties or meeting of minds of the parties to the offence to execute an evil design. Next, such meeting of minds or existence of agreement needs to be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Next, such meeting of minds or existence of agreement needs to be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is indeed true that it is difficult to find direct evidence in cases pertaining to conspiracy, however, there needs to be substantial evidence physically manifested to implicate the accused for committing the crime of conspiracy. 17. If the offence of criminal conspiracy is being established by way of relying on circumstantial evidence, then the fundamental principle of circumstantial evidence which provides that the chain of evidence needs to be so complete that no other inference other than complicity of the accused can be drawn and a few bits here and a few bits there cannot be considered as circumstantial evidence to prove commission of offence of criminal conspiracy is required to be followed. The same was reiterated in State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan and Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 203 wherein it was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that unconnected bits and pieces scattered all over the place are not sufficient enough to connect the accused with the crime of criminal conspiracy. The relevant paragraphs of the afore mentioned judgment are as follows: "12. We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is a matter of inference. The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of purpose in common between the conspirators. This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State held that to prove criminal conspiracy there must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between the two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. 13. In Kehar Singh v. State, it was noticed that Section 120A and Section 120B IPC have brought the Law of Conspiracy in India in line with English Law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not to be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whether any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code." 18. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whether any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code." 18. Criminal conspiracy is akin to a project of architecture where the key-conspirator is the chief architect and the maker of the evil design and under his instructions, the other person or persons raise(s) the building by placing the building blocks, thus, it is imperative to show the existence of such instructions being relayed or communicated from the principal architect or conspirator to the other people who are in agreement/concur with the architect. 19. The petitioner has been living abroad since a long time and he was not present in the country at the time of incident as well. There is no evidence, in any form, be it implied or explicit, direct or indirect, oral or documentary, which can bring the accused-petitioner under the scope of suspicion for commission of crime of conspiracy. It cannot be established from any act of the petitioner or from the surrounding circumstances that there was physical manifestation of concurrence of minds of the petitioner and the other accused persons. 20. It is apparent on the face of the record that there is possibility of false implication and the same cannot be ruled out. No phone connectivity, no exchange of conversation, no mail, no evidence of exchange of conversation in any mode or manner have been shown to exist between the accused-petitioner and the other alleged conspirators. The allegations are manifestly tainted with malice sans any material to corroborate, verify, substantiate, verify or supplement the allegation, thus, the case does not fall in the category where an offence of criminal conspiracy can be said to be found proved. In absence of such material, the investigating agency cannot be permitted to harass the petitioner against whom they have no material as implication of a person in a criminal proceeding certainly infringes his right to liberty which is otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 21. The present facts and circumstances of the case make it one which is squarely covered within the parameters propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. 21. The present facts and circumstances of the case make it one which is squarely covered within the parameters propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . The celebrated judgment passed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) is an authoritative precedent on the inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC and is relevant till date. Hon'ble the Supreme Court held therein that though no exhaustive list of the types of cases or set guidelines can be formulated, however, such illustrations were listed down after discussing the law enunciated in this context through judicial as well as statutory authorities which would require exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of law/any court. The illustrations are as follows: "105. 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 extra-ordinary 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. 3. 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 F.I.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 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. 106. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 22. The question that whether commission of a non-cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed in the FIR or not can be answered only by analysing the ingredients/requirements of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The question that whether commission of a non-cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed in the FIR or not can be answered only by analysing the ingredients/requirements of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The only test to be applied before exercising power under Section 482 CrPC is that the High court has to proceed on the basis of the allegations levelled in the complaint/FIR and the documents that have been presented therewith and at the juncture, it is not expected from the High Court to embark upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the complaint/FIR. In the present matter, the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not disclose a prima facie case of commission of a non-cognizable offence and this Court cannot permit to prosecute a person simply on account of his personal perceptions and illusive discernment/thoughts, thus, this Court is persuaded to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 23. Considering the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and after going through the record minutely while being aptly guided by the principles of law enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court time and again, more particularly in the cases referred above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no incriminating material against the petitioner and it seems that his name has been dragged into this matter just to chastise him. 24. In view of the above observations and taking into account that no ingredients have been found proved to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, this Court feels that continuance of the investigation in impugned FIR would surely amount to an abuse of process of law, therefore, to prevent the same, the present miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed with respect to the petitioner. 25. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition is allowed. The FIR No.165/2018 registered at the Police Station Chunawad, District Sriganganagar and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof qua the petitioner only are quashed and set aside. The SHO concerned is directed to prepare a closure report and shall submit the same before the Magistrate concerned within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. 26. That being so, the instant petition stands disposed of. 27. Stay petition also stands disposed of.