JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for grant of following substantive prayer:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the proceedings initiated on the final report of FIR No.21 of 2016 registered at P.S. Sadar, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16 pending before the learned Special Judge-II, Mandi, H.P. may kindly be quashed alongwith charge dated 14-7-2016 as the same is an outcome of false implication of the petitioner at the behest one Manjit Singh in connivance with ASI Ram Lal, Constable Pardeep and other police officials of P.S. Sadar, Mandi as is complete abuse of process of law.” In essence, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 14.07.2016, vide which he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’), alongwith setting aside of criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16, pending before the learned Special Judge-II, Mandi, H.P. 2. Heard Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 & Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Special Prosecutor for respondent No.2-CBI and gone through the record. 3. Following facts are not in dispute:- 3(i). FIR No.21/2016, dated 23.01.2016, was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner and one Roshan Lal were the two accused persons therein. 3(ii). Regular bail petition, bearing Cr.MP(M) No.407 of 2017, was moved by the petitioner in this Court. Father of the petitioner-Sh. Ramesh Chand raised serious allegations in the petition that his son had been falsely implicated in the NDPS case by one Manjeet S/o Sh. Ramphal, resident of Village Diluwala, District Jind, Haryana in connivance with ASI Ram Lal, Constable Pradeep Kumar and SI Jai Lal working in H.P. Police. Father of the petitioner (Ramesh Chand) also alleged that the said Manjeet was a smuggler, having deep nexus in H.P. Police. That his son was called by aforesaid Manjeet to Mandi, Himachal Pradesh from his home at Gurugram, Haryana, through his mobile number. After two days, i.e. on 22.01.2016 and 23.01.2016, Manjeet demanded an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs from the petitioner. That his son was called by aforesaid Manjeet to Mandi, Himachal Pradesh from his home at Gurugram, Haryana, through his mobile number. After two days, i.e. on 22.01.2016 and 23.01.2016, Manjeet demanded an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs from the petitioner. On petitioner’s refusal to pay, he was falsely implicated in the NDPS case in connivance with police officials. In fact, immediately after his arrest, similar complaints were made by the petitioner to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi and thereafter to the District & Sessions Judge, Mandi. 3(iii). Considering the serious allegations against the officials working in the Police Department and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while adjudicating the regular bail petition moved by the petitioner [Cr.MP(M) No.407 of 2017], the Court vide order dated 12.05.2017, observed that ‘it is imperative not only to instill confidence of the people in the system, but also to ensure credible investigations that the inquiry be handed over to a credible Investigating Agency’. Taking note of the exceptional situation, which had arisen, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (present respondent No.2) was directed to inquire into the complaints submitted by the petitioner and his father. Operative part of the order dated 12.05.2017 reads as under:- “14. Accordingly, the CBI is directed to inquire into the complaint No.D&SJ/Cr./AHL/MND/2016-940 dated 23.02.2016 and 2143 dated 13.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner and complaint No-PC/DGP/HP/2016-113 dated 02.08.2016, PC/NHRC/2016-42 dated 03.10.2016, PC/MISC/2016-1083 dated 14.09.2016 and PC/MISC/2016-1137 dated 26.09.2016 submitted by the father of the petitioner. The inquiry be conducted as expeditiously as possible and reports thereof be submitted before this Court, preferably by 31.08.2017. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the CBI at the following address:- “ACB Shimla, Railway Board Building, The Mall, 171003 (H.P.)” 3(iv). Pursuant to the above directions, respondent No.2-CBI conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted its report to the Court in sealed cover. Respondent No.2’s prayer for holding a regular inquiry was allowed by the Court on 06.10.2017. Respondent No.2-CBI thereafter conducted a detailed inquiry and filed its status report on 30.11.2017 in Cr.MP(M) No.407 of 2017. The inquiry conducted by respondent No.2 concluded that petitioner’s allegations of his false implication in NDPS case and alleged demand of Rs.20 Lakhs from him by the persons named by him and his father, were, prima facie, found to be correct and substantiated. The inquiry conducted by respondent No.2 concluded that petitioner’s allegations of his false implication in NDPS case and alleged demand of Rs.20 Lakhs from him by the persons named by him and his father, were, prima facie, found to be correct and substantiated. The findings in verbatim, as per the status report dated 30.11.2017 filed by respondent No.2, are as follows:- “5. Findings 5.1 Keeping in view the above facts, circumstances, and evidence revealed during the present Preliminary Enquiry, the allegations made by the petitioners regarding their alleged false implication in a case of NDS Act and the allegation of demand of Rs.20 lacs from the applicants, by Sh. Manjeet, Sh. Ram Lal, ASI, Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Constable, both of Police City Chowki, Mandi under PS-Sadar, Mandi, & Sh. Jai Lal, SI, PS-Sadar, Mandi and Sh. Jagsir Singh, (private person) owner of Vehicle No.HR-31-H-5859, have been prima facie found correct and substantiated. 5.2 That the aforesaid facts, circumstances and evidence, revealed during enquiry, prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences u/s 120-B IPC r/w sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and section 167, 193, 195, 347, 389, 384 and 511 of IPC, 1860, and section 58 of NDPS Act, 1985 and substantive offences thereof against the aforesaid suspects/persons. 5.3 That hence, unanimous recommendations to convert the present PE into a Regular Case for open and thorough investigation have been approved by the Competent Authority i.e. Director, CBI, HO, New Delhi.” On perusal of CBI’s status report, the Court directed it to convert the inquiry into a regular case. In light of the status report furnished by respondent No.2, petitioner’s bail petition was allowed on 07.12.2017, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. 3(v). Petitioner instituted present petition on 30.07.2018 praying for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him alongwith order dated 14.07.2016. On 02.08.2018, notice of this petition was issued to the respondents and further proceedings in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Mandi were stayed. This interim order is still in force. 3(v). Petitioner instituted present petition on 30.07.2018 praying for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him alongwith order dated 14.07.2016. On 02.08.2018, notice of this petition was issued to the respondents and further proceedings in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Mandi were stayed. This interim order is still in force. Pursuant to the orders passed in this matter from time to time, respondent No.2-CBI moved an application, bearing Cr.MP No.2490 of 2019, for placing on record the charge-sheet filed in CBI Case No.RC 0962017A0008, registered under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 167, 193, 195, 347, 389, 384 and 511 IPC, Sections 7 and 12(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 58 of the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet was filed against Manjeet S/o Sh. Ramphal, ASI Ram Lal, HC Pradeep Kumar, SI Jai Lal, Jagsir Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, HC Ram Singh, HC Kamal Singh Guleria, HHC Manoj Kumar and Constable Yadvinder Singh. The charge-sheet, inter alia, states that “there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that all the accused persons are actively involved in falsely implicating the complainants Ravi Kumar and Roshan Lal with the help of other co-accused persons”. Ravi Kumar is the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the said charge-sheet is now pending trial before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Shimla. It is in the above factual background that the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order of charge dated 14.07.2016 alongwith quashing of criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16, is to be considered. 4. Legal Position:- It will be appropriate to first delve on the scope of power under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of proceedings. 4(i). In (2008) 10 SCC 109 (Bharat Parikh Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another), following was observed with respect to invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of charges framed and quashing of criminal proceedings:- “18. Legal Position:- It will be appropriate to first delve on the scope of power under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of proceedings. 4(i). In (2008) 10 SCC 109 (Bharat Parikh Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another), following was observed with respect to invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of charges framed and quashing of criminal proceedings:- “18. With regard to the second proposition regarding the High Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, that a criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had produced sufficient material for charges to be framed.” 4(ii). (2012) 13 SCC 614 (Satish Mehra Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another), holds that a prosecution, which is bound to become lame or sham, ought to be interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of law…… if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding, but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact, the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the material revealed by the investigation carried out usually come on record……... Relevant extract from the judgment is as under:- “14. In fact, the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the material revealed by the investigation carried out usually come on record……... Relevant extract from the judgment is as under:- “14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to be interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extra ordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused.” 4(iii). In Criminal Appeal No.2060 of 2022 (Ramesh Chandra Gupta Versus State of U.P. & Ors.), decided on 28.11.2022, the principles considered in ( 2017 13 SCC 369 (Vineet Kumar & others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another), defining the scope and ambit of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, were reiterated that High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice would require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The saving of inherent powers is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The inherent power is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of the Court is abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. Where there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceeding. Relevant extract from the judgment is as under:- “15. This Court has an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2017) 13 SCC 369 , decided on 31st March, 2017. It may be useful to refer to paras 22, 23 and 41 of the above judgment where the following was stated: “22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court. Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 23. Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated: ‘7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.’ 41. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.’ 41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which is to the following effect: ‘102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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.’ Above Category is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.” 4(iv). We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.” 4(iv). Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 14 SCC 318 (Suresh Kumar Goyal and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another), delineated following steps for determining the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused for invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC with further observation that the parameters before the commencement of trial would also be available to the later stages as well:- “12. While dealing with the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings at the stage of issuance of process, or at the stage of committal, or at the stage of framing of charges, that is to say before the commencement of actual trial, in the light of material placed on record by the accused, this Court in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor laid down as under: (SCC pp. 347-48, paras 28-30) “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/ complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/ complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/ complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/ complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” In para 30.5 extracted in the above judgment, it has been held out that in case the judicial conscience of this Court is persuaded to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.PC for doing justice to the accused, then, the same should be resorted to as it would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding a trial, especially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. 4(v). (2019) 11 SCC 706 (Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Versus State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another) holds that “there is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a chargesheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” In the instant case, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16 pending against the petitioner in the Court of learned Special Judge-II, Mandi were stayed on 02.08.2018. The interim order has continued to be operative. 5. Petitioner’s false implication in FIR No.21/2016, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, on 23.01.2016, has been established on record. The interim order has continued to be operative. 5. Petitioner’s false implication in FIR No.21/2016, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, on 23.01.2016, has been established on record. Respondent No.2-CBI had carried out the investigations and inquired into the complaints presented by the petitioner and his father on the directions issued by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.407 of 2017. The CBI has concluded that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the afore-numbered FIR by the persons (private as well as police officials), who are now accused in CBI Case No.RC 0962017A0008. In the instant case, the facts noticed above make it amply clear that petitioner’s implication in the FIR was false. Respondent No.2-CBI has supported the case of the petitioner. In its pleadings, respondent No.2-CBI has culled out following points vindicating petitioner’s stand:- “A. That the Petitioner, Ravi Kumar, was called from his home in Gurgaon to Mandi, (H.P.) by accused Manjeet and he reached Mandi on 22nd January, 2016. B. That accused, viz., Manjeet, ASI Ram Lal and Constable Pradeep were in constant telephonic contact with each other during the relevant period. Similarly, accused ASI Ram Lal and accused SI Jai Lal were also in frequent telephonic contact with each other during the relevant period only. C. That the Petitioner was directed by accused Manjeet to bring Roshan Lal from Banjar to Mandi; and Manjeet handed over him a car bearing registration number HR 31H-5859 on 22nd January, 2016 near Aut, District Mandi, (H.P.). D. That the Petitioner, Roshan Lal and Gumat Ram came to Mandi from Banjar in the above mentioned vehicle and were detained near Pulgharat, District Mandi by Naka party of City Police Chowki headed by ASI Ram Lal on 22nd January, 2016. From there, they were taken to a room below Gurudwara Mandi which was taken on rent by ASI Ram Lal and were kept there till evening. Accused Pradeep Kumar, constable, demanded Rs.20 Lac (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) from the Petitioner. Accused ASI Ram Lal and Manjeet also visited this place and also demanded Rs.20 Lac (Rupees Twenty Lacs only). E. That in the evening of 22nd January, 2016, all the three persons, along with detained vehicle, were brought to the City Police Chowki, Mandi by accused ASI Ram Lal and other party members. F. That accused ASI Ram Lal had made false entry in the Daily Diary Register of City Chowki Mandi. E. That in the evening of 22nd January, 2016, all the three persons, along with detained vehicle, were brought to the City Police Chowki, Mandi by accused ASI Ram Lal and other party members. F. That accused ASI Ram Lal had made false entry in the Daily Diary Register of City Chowki Mandi. It has been mentioned in the Daily Diary Entry No.32 dated 22nd January, 2016 that during Nakabandi at Pulgharat, one vehicle bearing registration no. HR 31-H-5859 was detained and taken to City Police Chowki, along with its three occupants. After their interrogation on every point, they were released and no suspected things were recovered from them. As per DD report dated 22nd January, 2016 of City Chowki Police Station, the detained three persons were released along with vehicle in the night of 22nd January, 2016 at about 10:20 PM after thorough interrogation from all the three and satisfaction of police. G. That as a matter of fact, the three detained persons, namely, the Petitioner, Roshan Lal & Gumat Ram were not released from City Police Chowki in the night of 22nd January, 2016, but forced to stay in the Chowki Barrack and the car bearing registration number HR 31H 5859 was parked in the premises of the City Chowki Mandi and its key was in possession of Police. H. That the three detained persons were released from the City Police Chowki Mandi by ASI Ram Lal in the morning of 23rd January, 2016 and they were allowed to go from City Chowki Mandi, along with accused Manjeet. From there, the accused Manjeet took them to Neelam hotel located on the Mandi-Pandoh road for lunch; and after some time, accused constable Pradeep reached at the Neelam hotel in the same car bearing registration number HR 31 H 5859. I. That the accused Manjeet and constable Pradeep forced the Petitioner and Roshan Lal to sit in the same car bearing registration No. HR 31 H 5859 at Neelam hotel and directed them to come to Mandi with the assurance that they will be handed over their mobile phones, paper of vehicle and registry papers of plot of land of Roshan Lal. However, they were not ready to sit in the said car. The third person i.e. Gumat Ram was asked by Manjeet and Pradeep to sit with them in another vehicle. However, they were not ready to sit in the said car. The third person i.e. Gumat Ram was asked by Manjeet and Pradeep to sit with them in another vehicle. J. That when Roshan Lal and the Petitioner reached near the gate of Gurudwara Mandi, they were directed by accused Manjeet to park their car inside the Gurudwara campus. K. That after some time, another police party headed by SI Jai Lal reached at Gurudwara Mandi compound and asked names of both the Petitioner and Roshan Lal. The Petitioner and Roshan Lal were forced to sit in the above mentioned car and were taken to Sukibain and there the seizure of the charas was shown from them from the above mentioned car and FIR No.21 of 2016 dated 23rd January, 2016 was registered against the Petitioner and Roshan Lal in Police Station Sadar, Mandi u/s 20, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 181 of the MV Act. L. That during investigation, about sixty persons were examined by CBI, including the accused persons. Besides this, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of one eye witness Gumat Ram was also recorded, who accompanied the Petitioner and Roshan Lal from Banjar on 22nd January, 2016 and kept in detention at City Chowki Mandi and released on 23rd January, 2016. M. That statement of Mr. Inder Singh, hitherto HC, and now promoted as ASI u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. He was one of the naka party members of City Police Chowki Mandi on 22nd January, 2016. N. That Mr. Gumat Ram and ASI Inder Singh, in their statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., have corroborated the facts mentioned herein above, including the facts that accused ASI Ram Lal, Manjeet and Pradeep Kumar had demanded Rs.20 Lac (Rupees Twenty Lac only) from the Petitioner and Roshan Lal and had threatened them that in case they fail to pay the amount, they would be implicated in a false case of narcotics. They have also corroborated the fact that the Petitioner and Roshan Lal were forced to stay in the city chowki Mandi on 22nd January, 2016, as well as on 23rd January, 2016; and on 23rd January, 2016, the detained vehicle bearing registration No. HR 31-H-5859 was taken to Neelam Hotel by accused Pradeep Kumar. They have also corroborated the fact that the Petitioner and Roshan Lal were forced to stay in the city chowki Mandi on 22nd January, 2016, as well as on 23rd January, 2016; and on 23rd January, 2016, the detained vehicle bearing registration No. HR 31-H-5859 was taken to Neelam Hotel by accused Pradeep Kumar. O. That the accused Jagsir Singh had given a false certificate that he had handed over the vehicle to the Petitioner on 20th January, 2016; whereas on 20th January, 2016, the Petitioner was at his home in Gurgaon. P. That the vehicle bearing registration no. HR 31 H 5859 had not crossed the Toll Plaza Barrier of NHAI located at Karnal and Ambala between 15th January, 2016 to 23rd January, 2016 as certified by Manager (Technical), NHAI, Project Implementation unit, Ambala.” Respondent No.1-State in its reply has not specifically denied the facts noticed above. The stand of respondent No.1 is as under:- “8. ……………. It is denied that the inquiry report, clearly establishes that the petitioner has falsely been implicated or that the prosecution now is a complete abuse of law and as alleged in the para under reply. That case FIR No.21/2016 dated 23-01-2016 under Section 20 of ND&PS Act has rightly been registered at Police Station Sadar against Roshan Lal & Ravi Kumar and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Court of Ld. Sessions Court Mandi for judicial verdict and the same is pending adjudication before the Ld. Trial Court Mandi………….” The gist of respondent No.1’s stance is that the inquiry report furnished by the CBI does not give clean chit to the petitioner. However, such denial is only a denial in words. It is writ large in the inquiry report furnished by respondent No.2-CBI that the petitioner was got falsely implicated in the FIR by certain private individuals in connivance with police officials, who, for this reason, have now been made accused in another case registered against them. The charge in FIR in question was framed against the petitioner on 14.07.2016, i.e. much prior to the holding of inquiry by the CBI. The CBI had submitted its inquiry report before the Court on 30.11.2017 with its specific findings that the allegations of false implication in the FIR levelled by the petitioner and his father were found to be correct and duly substantiated. The CBI had submitted its inquiry report before the Court on 30.11.2017 with its specific findings that the allegations of false implication in the FIR levelled by the petitioner and his father were found to be correct and duly substantiated. The material now available in respect of false implication of the petitioner was not available before the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charge against him. It is manifest from the record that the case against the petitioner was a product of malafide and falsehood. It falls within the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of proceedings. Continuation of judicial proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. Rather, non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge-II, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.15/17/16 are set aside. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.