### Quashing of Charge-Sheet Refused Where Evidence Requires Appreciation and Prima Facie Commission of Offence is Disclosed

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Tiwari, sought the quashing of FIR No. 260/2024 and a supplementary charge-sheet (No. 740/A/2024) filed against him under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201, and 34 of the IPC.

The initial FIR alleged that nine individuals extorted ₹15,00,000 from the complainant, DK Das, by threatening to implicate him in a false case involving a minor.

While the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, his involvement emerged during further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, primarily through a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and memorandum statements of co-accused.

The petitioner argued he was falsely implicated without recovery of money or sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

Whether the FIR and supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner should be quashed on the grounds of vague allegations and lack of direct evidence at the investigation stage.

Whether the criminal proceedings are maintainable against the petitioner, a public servant, in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC.

The Court applied the settled principles regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, primarily relying on *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal* [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and *Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate* [(1998) 5 SCC 749], which dictate that quashing should be done sparingly and only when allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or are manifestly mala fide.

It also considered the scope of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and the evidentiary nature of statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC as per *Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur* and *Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna*.

Lastly, the court noted that the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC depends on whether the act was committed in the discharge of official duty.

The Court observed that while the petitioner's name did not appear in the initial FIR, the investigating agency discovered material suggesting his involvement during the supplementary investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The Court reasoned that the sufficiency, credibility, or reliability of statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and other collected evidence are matters of "appreciation of evidence" that fall strictly within the domain of the trial court.

It held that the High Court cannot embark on a detailed analysis of evidentiary worth at the quashing stage.

Regarding the Section 197 CrPC sanction, the Court determined that whether the alleged extortion was linked to official duty is a factual question to be examined during the trial.

Consequently, the case did not meet the "exceptional circumstances" threshold required for interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court clarified that the trial court must decide the case independently on its merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.