- (1.)Leave granted. The challenge herein is against an order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh refusing interference with the dismissal of an application filed by the appellant under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 656/2011 under Sections 384, 420, 467, 195A and 376 IPC read with Sections 7, 13, and 49 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. It will be necessary to notice, at this stage, that the appellant is the first informant in the aforesaid FIR which was initially filed under Sections 384 IPC read with Sections 7, 13, and 49 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is only during investigation that the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 376(2) (g) IPC was added and that too against the appellant himself. Upon investigation of the said facet of the FIR, final report in favour of the present appellant was filed in Court. Subsequently, however, a charge -sheet had been filed against the appellant. Questioning the same and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against him, the appellant had moved the High Court. On being refused relief by the High Court, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.)We have considered the materials on record and the exhaustive arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. In view of the course of action that we propose to take, it will not be necessary for us to recite the detailed facts of the case and record our findings thereon. Instead for the purpose of the present proceeding, it will be enough for us to take note of the following findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order:
"No doubt, prima facie the involvement of the petitioners in the case suffers from number of inherent weaknesses and apparent irregularities. The probability of prosecution having launched against the petitioners, being malafide, can also not be ruled out but I am not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction at this stage to quash the proceedings against the petitioners."

(3.)The High Court having taken the above view ought not to have refused the relief(s) sought by the appellant, particularly, as the appellant had been added as an accused in the course of investigation of the FIR filed by himself and not on the basis of any independent FIR or complaint.