ORDER : 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (for short “Cr.P.C.”) the petitioner asked relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report dated 29.04.2016 registered as II CR No.12/2016 with Savarkundla Rural Police Station, District – Amreli, for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 114 of IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage Public Property Act, 1984, and further proceedings thereof qua present petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 FIR being II CR No.12/2016 is filed with Savarkundla Rural Police Station, District – Amreli for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) along with the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages Public Property Act, 1984. It is alleged that the petitioner and his men have demolished premise of the Public Works Department (for short “PWD”) situated at Mahuva – Savarkundla Highway at village Vijapadi, Taluka – Savarkundla, District – Amreli. The FIR suggest that one clerk has telephonically informed about demolition act of the petitioner to Mr. K.R. Maitra, who was Deputy Executive Engineer at Road and Building Department. Since, Mr. Maitra associated with the petitioner, he did not take any action against removal of PWD house. This issue, therefore, was raised before the District Development Officer and on account of the call received from the office of the DDO, the FIR was filed. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Tulshi R. Savani appearing for the petitioner, stating the incumbent of the questioned FIR has mainly submitted that, overwhelming the documents indicates and demonstrates the non-existence of PWD plot on the spot. He has further submitted that the allegation levelled in the FIR says that petitioner and his men have illegally demolished PWD store. However, he submitted that Deputy Executive Engineer, Rajula, after conducting due verification, issued certificate in favour of petitioner that no PWD store existed in the spot. Learned advocate also submitted that Sarpanch, Vijapadi Gram Panchayat (Annexure C) passed resolution to support the petitioner that no such construction was existence at spot. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also referred to DILR, Amreli report (Annexure K) to support his submission that measurement report does not disclose existence of any such plot. 3.1. Learned advocate also submitted that Sarpanch, Vijapadi Gram Panchayat (Annexure C) passed resolution to support the petitioner that no such construction was existence at spot. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also referred to DILR, Amreli report (Annexure K) to support his submission that measurement report does not disclose existence of any such plot. 3.1. Bringing all above documents together, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner termed questioned FIR as false, fabricated and vexatious. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further claimed that FIR is filed with ulterior motive and vengeance as petitioner raised voice against first informant and become whistle blower for illegal gratification demanded by the first informant from poor agriculturists. 3.2. In premises of aforesaid arguments, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been made scapegoat / victim for the voice he has raised against petitioner, hence, he is arranged as accused in a FIR, therefore, same be quashed. 4. In spite being served, respondent No.2 did not remain present. 5. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor howbeit argued that first informant is Additional Engineer Class-2, PWD department, the FIR in question is filed under the instruction and direction of District Development Officer’s (DDO) Office. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that Executive Engineer in a case on hand is Mr. K. R. Maitra. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would further submit that Executive Engineer, Mr. K.R. Maitra directed to file FIR by DDO office, but that direction was not materialize as Executive Engineer Mr. Maitra was in hand in glove with the petitioner. Thus, the complainant was directed to file FIR by the DDO office. It is submitted that thus the FIR is filed delayed. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would further submit that existence of PWD store on the spot or otherwise is question of disputed facts and can be decided during trial. It cannot be believed that FIR was false and vexatiously filed. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would further submit that plain reading of FIR show case of cognizable offence. Investigation carried in the matter supports contents of the FIR and established at first instance that PWD store existed on Mahuva – Savarkundla Highway at village Vijapadi, Taluka – Savarkundla, District – Amreli and has been demolished by the petitioner in connivance with Executive Engineer, Mr. Maitra. 5.1. Learned Addl. Investigation carried in the matter supports contents of the FIR and established at first instance that PWD store existed on Mahuva – Savarkundla Highway at village Vijapadi, Taluka – Savarkundla, District – Amreli and has been demolished by the petitioner in connivance with Executive Engineer, Mr. Maitra. 5.1. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would further submit that the report of the Executive Engineer relied upon by the petitioner would not support any assistance as it was made by Mr. Maitra who is himself arraigned as the accused in the questioned FIR. As far as certificate issued by Sarpanch, village Vijapadi is concerned, learned Addl. Public Prosector would submit that legality of said certificate can be examined during the trial, but since the documents are not part of investigation, therefore, it cannot be looked into, at this juncture of quashing FIR. As far as DILR, Amreli, report is concerned, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would submit that the factum of the plot was carried subsequent to demolition of the PWD store. 5.2. In view of the above, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would submit to dismiss petition. 6. In case of Eicher Tractor Limited and other vs. Harihar Singh and Another , (2008) 16 SCC 763 , it is held that the Apex Court has discretionary power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It also held at paragraph 13(9) that: “13(9) As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the higher court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. … It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.” 7. This position of law has been reinterpreting in judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Malik vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another , 2025 SSC Online SC 185 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed at paragraph 8 and 9 as under. “8. This position of law has been reinterpreting in judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Malik vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another , 2025 SSC Online SC 185 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed at paragraph 8 and 9 as under. “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold; thereby pre- empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations: (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably.” 8. In backdrop of aforesaid legal dictum and considering discretionary power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if we examine the arguments canvased by the petitioner regarding the case of the prosecution, petitioner says that there was non-existence of PWD store situated at Mahuva – Savarkundla Highway at village Vijapadi, Taluka – Savarkundla, District – Amreli, and based upon said submission, accused prayed that the FIR is vexatious and meaningless. It is alleged that Mr. K.R. Maitra and the petitioner were in hand in glove with each other, demolished PWD store situated village Vijapadi. The said fact was reported to the DDO office and directed Mr. Maitra to file FIR, but in absence of following the direction by Mr. Maitra, the questioned FIR was filed against petitioner. Apt to note that Mr. K.R. Maitra and the petitioner were in hand in glove with each other, demolished PWD store situated village Vijapadi. The said fact was reported to the DDO office and directed Mr. Maitra to file FIR, but in absence of following the direction by Mr. Maitra, the questioned FIR was filed against petitioner. Apt to note that Mr. Maitra, Deputy Executive Engineer has not followed command of the higher office and not registered the FIR. Thus, prima facie it indicates involvement of Mr. K.R. Maitra along with petitioner and further strengthen the fact that PWD store on Mahuva – Savarkundla Highway at village Vijapadi has been demolished. Mr. K.R. Maitra who is accused in FIR had also issued certificate (Annexure B) which is neither on the letterhead of the PWD office nor round seal in favour of the petitioner, that there is no entry in PWD register about PWD store at village – Vijapadi. Prima facie in connivance is visible. Vijapadi Gram Panchayat Office has issued the certificate in favour of petitioner, at the most it could be a good evidence in defense. The DILR, Amreli report (Annexture K) verified the boundary of the land, it is not done for the purpose of identifying existence of any construction. The face of the FIR is much clear that the DDO did not consider the main and other documents, and found that the PWD store was existed in a Mahuva – Savarkundla Highway at village Vijapadi, and act of demolition of the store in the instruction of petitioner and others was reported by Mr. Purshottambhai K. Tank a clerk of the office of PWD to Mr. K.R. Maitra in presence of Mr. J.J. Bhuva, a senior clerk of office. Further, Mr. Rasulkhan Pathan – clerk also informed Mr. K.R. Maitra about demolition act, but hand in glove with the name of the petitioner, Mr. K.R. Maitra did not take action. It is good argument that the FIR is filed lately, but that could not be a good ground to quash the FIR. 9. In case of MCD vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi , (1983) 1 SCC 1 , the Apex Court held that the proceedings can be quashed on the face of the complaint and the papers accompanying the same, does not constitute any offence. The Apex Court further held that it is not permissible to add or subtract anything. 9. In case of MCD vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi , (1983) 1 SCC 1 , the Apex Court held that the proceedings can be quashed on the face of the complaint and the papers accompanying the same, does not constitute any offence. The Apex Court further held that it is not permissible to add or subtract anything. The Apex Court observed at paragraph No.10 as under. “10. It is , therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if, on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code.” 10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka , (2022) 2 SCC 129 , the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, based on the evidence collected during the course of the trial. This position of law is reiterated in judgment in the case of Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana , (2023) 7 SCC 711 . 11. In view of the judgment of Apex Court, in case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand , (2025) 1 SCC 392 , the contention of petitioner to refer various documents which are not formatting the part of the FIR or investigation cannot be accepted as the Court has prevented from holding mini trial in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. The foregoing reasons stated above says that petitioner failed to put the case to exercise the extraordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.