- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by Satish Kumar Sharma for quashing the proceedings in Case Crime No. 182-A of 1989-State v. Satish Kumar Sharma, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. Police Station Munshiganj, District Sultan pur.
(2.) THE facts of the case stated, in brief, are that the petitioner is a member of Rajya Sabha and belongs to the Indian National Congress. He was actively campaigning in the Amethi Parliamentary Constituency, Sultan pur in favour of late Rajiv Gandhi former Prime Minister of India. who was a Congress (I) candidate during Parliamentary Elections, In this connection the petitioner frequently visited the Parliamentary Constituency to look after the development and other work for the last several years before the Elections. Shri Sanjay Singh had also been a Congress (I) M. L. A. from Amethi Legislative Assembly since 1980. Shri Sanjay Singh used to accom pany the petitioner whenever they used to go to Amethi alongwith his shadows. Some time in 1987 Shri Sanjay Singh left Congress (I) and joined Janta Dal. In 1988 Shri Sanjay Singh was arrested by Central Bureau of Investigation on the charge of alleged conspiracy and murder of Sayed Modi, Badminton Player, alongwith others including Smt. Amita Modi, wife of the deceased. At that time Shri Sanjay Singh gave statement that he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the petitioner. That case is still pending. Shri Sanjay Singh was defeated in the last Assembly Election from Amethi Constituency by the Congress (I) candidate. Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi won the Parliamentary seat from Amethi. After the defeat of Congress (I) in the last Parliamentary Polls a reign of terror and political vendatta against political opponents had started. F. 1. R. after F. I. R. were lodged against the political opponents and public servants who were holding high positions in the previous Government. On 22-11-1989 at about 3. 45 p. m. some violent incident took place between Janta Dal and Congress (I) workers in which Shital Prasad, Satya Narayan Yadav and Manoj Mithra of Congress (I) and Shri Sanjay Singh, Dhananjay Singh, Om Prakash Singh and Raj Karan Singh of Janta Dal received fire-arm injuries in cross firing at Bhusiawa crossing in Police Station Munshiganj, district Sultanpur. Within 45 minutes of the incident F. I. R. was lodged at 3-45 p. m. on the same day by one Ashish Shukla against Shri Sanjay Singh and 40-50 other Janta Dal workers at Police Station Munshiganj. This F. I. R. was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 436, I. P. C. and was registered at Crime No. 182 of 1989. No action was taken by the Police on this F. I. R. 4, On the next day of the incident i. e. , 23-11-1989 at 6. 40 p. m. one Head Constable Jai Prakash Singh who was also a Shadow of Shri Sanjay Singh, lodged a cross-F. I. R. at police Station Chowk, Lucknow after full deliberations and consultations. In that F. I. R. no person was made an accused and no witness was also mentioned in it. This F. I. R. was lodged at Crime No. 182-A of 1989 under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 504,1. 1. C. This F. I. R. was later sent to the Police Station Munshiganj, Sultanpur. The name of the petitioner never came during investigation from 22-11-1989 to 1-12-1989. The petitioner was not named by Head Constable Jai Prakash and Jang Bahadur Yadav. Even no injured named the petitioner during this period. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to the C. B. C. I. D. on the same day on the death of Raj Karan Singh in the Medical College, Lucknow, Section 302,1. P. C. was added. After investigation C. I. D. arrested 14 persons in all and they were put up for identification on 13-2-1990 and on 16-2-1990 sub mitted report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. before the Chief Judicial Magis trate, Sultanpur, challenging 12 accused persons in Crime No. 182-A of 1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504, I. P. C. In this charge-sheet the petitioner was not made an accused. The first supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against six persons on 6 4-19; 0 but the name of the petitioner was not to be found in the charge-sheet. Thereafter second supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Vijay Bahadur Singh on 7-5-1990 under the same sections and even in this second supplementary charge-sheet the name of the petitioner was not to be found. The petitioner was interrogated for the first time in April, 1990, about this incident. It appears that in between 7-5-1990 to 14-5-1990 the Investigating Officer was pressurised by Shri Sanjay Singh to arrest the petitioner. On 14- 5-1990 an application was made by the Investigating Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner got his arrest stayed from Delhi High Court on 15-5-1990. Thereafter on 18-4-1990 a meeting of top officials took place at the Headquarters of C. B. , C. I. D. , Lucknow in which top police officers and Secretaries of the Government parti cipated and at their level a decision was taken that a charge-sheet be submitted against the petitioner. In compliance to this direction the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur on 21-5-1990 under Sections J47, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. For the first time Section 120-B, I. P. C. was pressed into service and against the petitioner alone. There is no evidence worth the name to connect the petitioner with the crime. The police has falsely impli cated the petitioner. 5. On behalf of the State counter-affidavit has been filed by one Hakim Rai who was Section Officer, Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Depart ment, Lucknow. According to this affidavit, the petitioner remained at Gauriganj, District Sultanpur, Inspection House and Tarapur, District Sultanpur, Inspection House with effect from 1-11-1989 to 27-11-1989 as per records/ investigation and he returned back to Delhi on 29-U-1989. It is admitted that Dr. Sanjay Singh had been M. L A from Amethi, Sultanpur constituency since 1980. Head Constable Jai Prakash Singh was deployed with him as shadow and gunner duty. Constable Jang Bahadur Singh was deployed with him as shadow from the last one year. He admitted that Dr. Sanjay Singh was arrested by C. B. I. in the year U88 in the murder case of Syed Modi. Sanjay Singh was defeated in the last Assembly Election from Amethi, Sultanpur constituency by Congress (I) candidate and late Rajiv Gandhi won the Parlia mentary seat of Amethi. 6. On the date of incident, viz. , 22-11-1989, at about 3-00 p. m. , which was the date of General Election, the petitioner, alongwith the accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly and opened fire at Dr. Sanjay Singh and other workers of the Janta Dal at Bhusiawa crossing, P. S. Munshiganj, distriet Sultanpur. This firing took place between the workers of the Congress (I) and the two shadows of Dr. Sanjay Singh. In this incident Dr. Sanjay Singh Dhananjay Singh. Om Prakash Singh and Raj Karan Singh of Janta Dal sustained fire-arm injuries. Shital Prasad, Satya Narayan Yadav and Manoj Misra of Congress (I) also received fire-arm injuries, but these injuries were simple in nature. A written report of this incident was lodged on 22-11-1989 at 3-45 p. m. by one Ashish Shukla against Dr. Sanjay Singh and 40-50 Janta Dal workers at P. S. Munshiganj, district Sultanpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 436, I. P. C. A case was registered as Crime No. 182 of 1989. 7. Head Constable Jai Prakash Singh, shadow of Dr. Sanjay Singh, also lodged a F. I. R. of the said incident on 23-11-1989 at 6. 40 a. m. at P. S. Chowk, Lucknow against unknown Congress (I) workers. No accused or witness was mentioned in the said F. I. R. except that the name of two shadows and injured Dr. Sanjay Singh were mentioned. This F. I. R. was later on sent to P. S. Munshiganj, district Sultanpur, where a cross-case No. 182-A-89 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 504, I. P. C. was registered. The evidence of previous conspiracy by the petitioner and others came to light and was established during the investigation. The local police investigated Crime No. 182-A of 1990 from 23-11-1989 to 1-12-1989, but it did not record the statement of the shadow or the injured persons. Thereafter, the case was entrusted to the Criminal Investigation Department, U. P. , on 1-12-1989. The case amended and Section 302,1. P. C. was added because Raj Kanwar Singh died on 1-12-1989 in the Medical College, Lucknow. 8. The first charge-sheet was submitted on 16-2-1990 against 12 persons in Case Crime No, 182-A-89. This was submitted in the Court of C. J M. Sultanpur and in the charge-sheet it was mentioned that the investigation against the petitioner is still continuing. Thereafter another supplementary charge-sheet vas filed against six person on 6-4-1990 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504, I. P. C. and it was mentioned that the investigation against the petitioner is still continuing, Thereafter, second supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against one Vijay Bahadur Singh under Sections 147, 1-8, 149, 307, 302 and 504,1. P. C. on 7-6-1990. It was also mentioned that the investigation against the petitioner is also under progress. In spite of sufficient evidence, till 3-4-1990 the petitioner could not be charge-sheeted as the evidence led by the petitioner was to be verified. In his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. Dr. Sanjay Singh named the petitioner and the complicity of the petitioner was fully established. There was no pressure from the investigating agency on the officers of the Criminal Investigating Department. After investigation non-bailable warrant of arrest was taken out against the peti tioner. As the arrest of the petitioner had been stayed by the High Court of Delhi, therefore, the petition" could not be arrested. It is further alleged that it is wrong that the top officers and the Secretary of Government held a meeting at Crime Branch Headquarters on 18-4-1990 and took a decision for submit ting charge-sheet against the petitioner A charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 120-B, I. P. C. on 21-5-1990. It is further alleged that a report, alonwith the case Diary, was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, on 30-5-1990 to add Section 120-B, I. P. C. against Ashish Shukla, Satya Narain Yadav and Ram Raj Misra, as there was sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy during investigation. 9. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit, but it is not necessary to deal with the allegations mentioned in the same. 10. Learned counsel for the parties and Government Advocate have been heard. 11. Now we come to the facts of the persent case in order to see whether under the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C. , the F. I. R. the investigation done by the Police, and the charge-sheet submitted by the police can be quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. C. Maheshwari, argued that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated by Sri Sanjay Singh on the ground of political enmity. According to the learned counsel the incident took place on 22-11-1989 on the day of General Elections. In this General Election late Sri Rajiv Gandhi was also contesting from Amethi. Dr. Sanjay Singh injured in the present case was also contesting from the same Parliamentary Constituency. The I. F. R of this case was lodged by Head Constable Jai Prakash Singh on the next day viz. , 23-11-1989 at 6,40 a. m. at P. S. Chowk, Lucknow. A copy of that police report is also tiled. In this report the names of the accused persons have not be mentioned. Similarly, the names of the witnesses are also not to be found in that report'. The investigation was started by the police. This report was sent to P. S. Munshiganj district Sultanpur, where it was given case Crime No. 182-A of 1989 and it was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 504, I. P. C. Later on, after the death of one person Section 302, I. P. C. was also added. 12. In para 29 of the counter affidavit of Hakim Rai, investigating officer, the entire evidence which is against the petitioner has been mentioned. In this case the first charge-sheet was submitted by the Police against 12 persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I. P. C. on 16-2-1990. At that time name of the petitioner was not mentioned as one of the accused. It was merely mentioned that investigation against him is continuing. Thereafter first supplementary charge-sheet was submitted to the Court on 6-4-1590 against 6 persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504, I. P. C. The petitioner was not charge-sheeted in this charge-sheet and it was mentioned that investigation against the petitioner is still continuing, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted by the police against one Person on 7-M990 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 504, I. P. C. The name of the petitioner was not to be found in this charge-sheet, but it was mentioned that the investigation is continuing. The charge-sheet against the petitioner was, for the first time, filed on 21-5-1990 under Sections 147, 148 149 307, 302 504 and 120-B, I. P. C. According to , the allegations in para 19 of the counter affidavit the charge-sheet against the petitioner could not be submitted because the defence evidence, led by the petitioner, was to be verified. In para 19 of the counter affidavit Hakim Rai has stated as under : "sufficient evidence had come forth till 7-5-1990 against the petitioner yet the charge-sheet was not submitted against him because the defence evidence led by the petitioner was being verified. " 13 Thus, this contention in the counter affidavit clearly |goes to show that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner till 7-5-1990 on the basis of which a charge-sheet could have been submitted against the petitioner. 14. Now, we have to see whether the reason for not submitting charge-sheet against the petitioner on 7-5-1990 is borne out from the Case Diary A perusal of case diary dated 7-5-1990 will go to show that charge-sheet was submitted against 12 persons in 16-2-1990. Thereafter, the next Parcha is of 11-5- 1990. In these purchas it is clearly mentioned that there took place meeting of the officers and the prosecution officer of the head-quarters. Sri V. P. Singh, and after deliberation it was decided that on the basis of investi gation there is sufficient evidence against Captain Satish Sharma to proceed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 120-B, I. P. C. It was further mentioned that for his identification a warrant of arrest be obtained. Then in the case diary of 14-5-1990 to 16-5-1990 the police remained busy in connection with the arrest of the petitioner. In the case diary, dated 18-5-1990 it is mentioned that there is no definite evidence upto this stage against any other person in this crime on the basis of which any proceeding can be brought. On the basis of this evidence 2 persons have already been charge-sheeted and the investigation against the petitioner is pending on account of the fact that his identification is to be got done by certain persons. It may be recalled that charge-sheet agains the petitioner was submitted on 21-5-1990. There is no other parch in this case diary between 19-5-1990 and 28-5-1990. Thus, on the basis of this case diary it cannot be said that the charge sheet against the petitioner could not be submitted on account of the fact that verification from the defence witnesses was necessary. The case diary reveals that the submission of the charge-sheet was withheld on the ground that the petitioner had to be identified from some witnesses. According to the allegation in para 29, the first evidence against the peti tioner was that at about 1 p. m. Ashish Shukla and Jamuna Shukla on 22-11-1989, on the date of occurrence, went inside Gauriganj Inspection House where the petitioner was staying. They came out alongwith the peti tioner and the petitioner there uttered the words, "let us kill Sanjay Singh wherever he happens to meet us. " Thereafter, the petitioner left the Inspec tion House alonawith the above persons. This evidence has come in the state ments of three Home Guards, namely, Raj Bahadur Singh, Sangam Singh and Bal Karan. Their statements were recorded on 14-12-1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S. C. Maheshwari has argued that these Home Guards they given affidavits that they have not made any such statement. These affidavits have been filed on the record. It may be mentioned that this evidence cannot be looked into in view of the clear pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no document which has been tendered by the accused can be looked into by the court. 15. Thereafter another piece of evidence which came against the peti tioner is the statements of some of the witnesses. They are the statements of 11 witnesses which have been recorded by the investigation officer under Section 161, Cr. P. C. These 11 witnesses have stated that Captain Satish Sharma had said : "captain Satish Sharma Ne Kaha Ke Maar Dalo Mil Goya. " The statements of these witnesses were recorded from 3-12-1989 to 8-2-1990. The statement of Dr. Sanjay Singh was recorded on 8-2-3990 while the state ment? of other witnesses were recorded upto 25-1-1990. Dr. Sanjay Singh in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C, has stated that the petitioner was also present when the shots were being fired. When the bullet hit him, 'the petitioner hid himself behind the jeep. He has not stated that the peti tioner had also fired any shot. No other witness has stated that the peti tioner had also fired any shot, or was present on the spot when firing was going on. After this edtire evidence has been recorded by the investigating officer, the first charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating officer on 16-2-1990. If any offence was made out during the investigation and the investigating officer found that the statements of these witnesses also impli cate the petitioner, then in the first charge-sheet the name of (he petitioner should have also found place alongwith the other persons. Even in the first and the second supplementary charge-sheet the name of the petitioner was not mentioned as one of the accused and he was not charge-sheeted under those sections. It was for the first time that in the charge-sheet, dated 21-5-1990 that Section 120-B, I. P. C. was added. It may also be worth-while to mention that another charge-sheet had been submitted against mentioned in the case diary of 19-5-1990 that there was no evidence against any other person to charge-sheet him. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. C. Maheshari, has argued that under the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C. the court has inherent powers to quash the proceedings where there is no evidence to support the charge which is levelled against the petitioner. It has been seen in the earlier part of the judgment that the incident has taken place on 22-11-1989 at about 3. 45 p. m. in which it is alleged that the petitioner was also present at the spot and he conspired with some other accused persons to commit murder of Dr. Sanjay Singh. 17. In this connection reference can be made to some of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first case is State of Karnataka v. L. Manishowamy and others, AIR 1977 SC 1489. In para 7 it was observed a under : "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 bean abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed " In para 9 it was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : "considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdic tion as wholesome as the one conferred by Section 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. " The next case is State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1982 SC 1949. In para 65 it was observed : "whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F. I. R. and the court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials the court has to come to the conclu sion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court will normally not interfere with the investig ation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for provid ing the offence. . If, on the other hand, the court on a consider ation of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be duty of the court to interfere with any investi gation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual. " The next case is Madhavrao Jiwalirao Sciadia and others v. Sambhajirao Chand-rojirao Angre and others, 1988 SCC (Crl) 234. In para 7 it was observed as under: "the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into con sideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage". The scope of Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been clearly laid down in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharasthra, (1977) 4 SCC 551. It was observed : "on a plain reading of Section 482, however, it would follow that nothing in the code, which would include sub-section (2) of Section 397 also, 'shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. '. . . ,,. . . . . . . . . . But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court or for the purpose of securing the ends of Justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then no thing contained in Section 397 (7) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court". The recent case under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1990i (2) SCALE 226. This judgment was also rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In para 103 it has been observed as under : "in the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant pro visions of the Code under Chapter XIV and the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinaty 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 exer cised 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 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Where the uncontrovered allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused. (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with the mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously insti tuted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and per sonal grudge"- A note of caution has been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 18. In para 60 of the same judgment it has also been observed as under: "the sum and substance of the above deliberations results to a con clusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclu sively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the pro visions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obligerating the tract of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as afore mentioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XVI of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court of being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grie vance, has to consider the nature and extend ol the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution". In the case of State of Bihar and others v. P. P. Sharma and another, AIR 1991 SC 1260, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that annexures and affidavits can not be treated as evidence and the High Court cannot convert itself into a trial court. It was also held, relying on the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, (supra) that existence of a deep seated political vendetta is no ground for quashing a F. I. R. 19. In the case of Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, 1990 Crl LJ 320, it was observed as under : "section 482 empowers the High Court to exercise its Inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppres sive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the in herent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a con sideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/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". 20. A perusal of this case shows that if no offence is made out from the allegations of the complaint of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, then the High Court can interfere in certain circumstances. 21. In the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 39 the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. C. were interpreted and it was observed as under : "the High Court has, however, not confined its scrutiny to the aver ments contained in the first information report but has traversed beyond and examined the case in the light of the contentions put forth by the respondents in their petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. " In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others, 1989 Crl LJ 1005 (Para 6) Section 482, Cr. P. C. was considered and the scope of inherent powers to be exercised by the High Court was laid down : "it is trite that jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or other wise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is called upon to 'exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law con stitute or spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceed ings would in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not. " 22. A perusal of this case also shows that at the stage when cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate the High Court is to be guided by the allegations made in the complaint or the charge sheet. 23. Thus, in view of these pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. if the F. l. R. and the evidence collected in support of the charge by the prosecution is so absured that no person can reach a conclusion that the accused had committed an offence. Similarly, criminal proceedings can be quashed on the ground of mala fide or where the proceedings are maliciously instituted even at the stage of the F. l. R. or at the stage of charge-sheet when the evidence does not show that the ingredients of the offence are present in any case. However, this power is to be exercised in very rare cases. 24. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sri I. B. Singh, the evidence of conspiracy against the accused persons is clear from the evidence on record. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment in para 29 of the affidavit of Hakim Rai, investigating officer, it is mentioned that Ashish Shukla and Jamuna Shukla came out of the Inspection House alongwith the petitioner and there the petitioner uttered the words to kill Dr. Sanjay Singh wherever he happens to meet them. Learned counsel has further argued that the witnesses of the prosecution had also stated that Captain Satish Sharma was also seen at the spot by the witnesses and the petitioner had also stated well done. It may be mentioned that witnesses Ram Shiroman Singh had stated that the petitioner was in the last jeep when the Congress (I) jeep left for the place of incident. Jang Bahadur Singh stated that he saw the petitioner in the last jeep from a distance of 50 yards. Rudal witness has started that the petitioner came out of the jeep. Five witnesses stated that after the incident the petitioner stopped and peeped out of his vehicle and said well done. This was said by the petitioner when the incident was over and the accused persons had left the place of incident. 25. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if the petitioner was also involved in the conspiracy then he should have been charge-sheeted in the very beginning in the first charge sheet on the basis of the above evidence, but the investigating officer did not find this evidence sufficient and, therefore, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted alongwith the other accused persons. Now, from what has been stated above, we find that the entire evidence against the petitioner has come on record when the statement of Dr. Sanjay Singh was recorded on 8-2-1990 as is evident from the record. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment nothing was done by the investigating officer which would go to show that evidence against the petitioner was forthcoming for conspiracy after the statement of Dr. Sanjay Singh was recorded. 26. In order that offence against the petitioner under Section 120-B, I. P. C. can be levelled, it is necessary that ingredients of Section 120-B I. P. C. should be present, A perusal of Section 120-B, I. P. C. will go to show that for substantial charge of conspiracy the prosecution must prove : " (1) the accused conspired with another person or persons ; (2) he did so to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means ; and (3) an over act was done by one or more of the conspirators in pur suance of the conspiracy, but this is not necessary if the agreement was to commit an offence. " On this point reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following rulings. In the case of Emperor v. Aftab Mohd. Khan and others, AIR 1940 All 291, wherein it was observed : "the offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B is one which re quires detailed and specific proof against each of the accused that he individually participtaed in a particular design to do a parti cular criminal thing," In the case of Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883, it was held that : "the most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agreement, but the very agreement, is an offence and is punishable. " "entering into an agreement by two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is the very quintessence of the offence of conspiracy. " In para 268 the English Law has been cited from Russel on Crime (12 Ed. Vol. I, 202) which reads as under : "the gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them nor inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agree ment is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough. " In para 272 it was observed : "generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that |they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circums tantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same fend or-they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the letter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is neces sary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communi cation. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. " In para 273 it has been stated as under : "the relative acts or conduct of the parties must be concientious and clear to mark their concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant fact artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence. The innocuous, or inadvertent event and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict " In the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. V. C. Shukla and another, AIR 1980 SC 1382, in para 8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provi sion of Section 120-B, I. P. C. and observed as under : "before we proceed further, we might indicate that it is well settled that in order to prove a criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agree ment between two or more persons to commit an offence. This clearly envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the com mission of an offence. It is true that in most cases it will be diffi cult to get direct evidence of an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. " 27. In view of the case-law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that in a criminal conspiracy there should be meeting of minds bet ween the two or more persons. If two or more persons have not conspired then the offence of conspiracy cannot be said to be made out. In the present case, as seen in the earlier part of the judgment, charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted on 21-5- 1990. Upto that time no charge-sheet was submitted under Section 120-B, I. P. C. against any of the persons, 28. In para 26 Hakim Rai, investigating officer, has stated that the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149. 307, 302, 504 and 120-B, I. P. C. on 21-5-1990 and thereafter it is stated that a report was submitted alongwith the Case Diary to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, on 30-5-1990 to add Section 120-B in the charge-sheet of Ashish Shukla, Satya Narian Yadav and Ram Raj Misra against whom similar evidence of criminal conspiracy had come during investigation. It may be recalled that the statements of all these persons had been recorded by 8-2- 1990. If there was evidence of criminal conspiracy against these persons much earlier to 21-5-1990. This also goes to show that upto 21-5-1990 the prosecution was not sure as to who are the conspirators in this case and the charge-sheet under Section 120-B was submitted against the petitioner only. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the conspiracy cannot be committed by one person. A person cannot conspire with himself. There should be more than one person in order to commit the offence of conspiracy. Till 21-5-1990 only the petitioner was taken to have been involved in the cons piracy. This shows that the ingredients of the evidence of offence under Section 120-B, I. P. C. were not made out upto that stage when the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioner is the words uttered by him at the Inspection House on 14-12-1989 and the words "well done" uttered by him on the date of occur rence after the accused persons had left. This evidence in no way goes to connect show the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy to commit the offence. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution pro poses to rely are woefully inadequate for connecting the petitioner with the crime, howsoever skilfully one may attempt to weave those bits into a presen table whole. 29. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances and the pro babilities of the case individually or cumulatively, we find that they do not point out in the direction that the petitioner entered into any conspiracy with anyone to murder Dr. Sanjay Singh and to commit other offences. 30. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. C. Maheshwari, the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed on the of pressure put on the investigating officer by higher authorities. This fact is borne out on a perusal of the Case Diary and the affidavit of Hakim Rai the investigating officer. In para 16 of the petitioner has specifically alleged that on 18-4-1990 a meeting of the top officials took place at the headquarters of C. I. D. Lucknow in which top police officers and Secretaries of the Govern ment participated and at their level a decision was taken that in a charge-sheet be submitted against the petitioner and consequently the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The reply to this para is contained in para 26 of the counter affidavit of Hakim Rai. In that para it has not been denied that there was meeting of top officers and the Secretary of Government, but it is denied that in that meeting a decision was taken to file e charge-sheet against the petitioner. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment in the Case Diary dated 11-5-1990 a mention is to be found that a meeting between the officers and the prosecuting officer of the headquarter took place and after deliberation a decision was taken that evidence is sufficient against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 120-B, I. P. C. This fact clearly goes to show that the meeting was held by the officers of the Government with prosecution officers of the police head quarters and in that meeting it was decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge-sheet the petitioner under the aforesaid section. Soon after the meeting on 11-5-1990, a charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above sections was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, on 21-5-1990. It may be recalled that according to the supplementary affidavit dated 29-11-1990 of Hakim Rai, it is mentioned that it was clear that the complicity of the petitioner had come to light for the first time in the instant case on 30-12-1989 during the statement of Kunwar Singh and subsequent evidence and statement recorded upto 8-2-1990. In the present case, the first charge-sheet, as mentioned earlier, was submitted in the court on 16-2-1990. Thus, entire evidence had come by that time including the three statements of the Home Guards which were recorded on 14-12-1989. At present, the statements of these three Home Guards are being used against the petitioner as supporting the case of conspiracy. If in the opinion of the investigating officer any offence under any other section of the Indian Penal Code including 120-B, I. P. C. was made out against the petitioner, then a charge-sheet would have been submitted against the petitioner also under these sections on 16-2-1990. This goes to show that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted under the pressure of the government officers in the meetings held on 18-4-1990 and 11-5- 1990. Thus, the investigating officer has not exercised his independent decision in submitting the charge-sheet against the petitioner, but has acted on the advice and the pressure put on him by the higher authorities. 31. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, it is clear that there was no evidence worth the name against the petitioner on which a charge-sheet could have been filed against the petitioner in the Court of Cnief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, no name of the accused was mentioned in the F. I. R. 32. The petition is allowed and the charge-sheet and proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur against the petitioner Satish Kumar Sharma arising out of case Crime No. 182-A of 1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 read with Section 120-B, P. S. Munshi-ganj, district Sultanpur, are quashed. Petition allowed. .;