Sanju Rajan Nayar vs Jayaraj - 2024 Supreme(SC) 373

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 373

SANJAY KAROL, P. B. VARALE
Sanju Rajan Nayar – Appellant
Versus
Jayaraj – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.V.Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anna Oomen, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Ms. Anusha R., Adv. Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurthy, Adv. Ms. Divija Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Sunidhi Hegde, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prakash Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Ravichandra Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Shashank Reddy, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Adv. Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Paliwal, Adv.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Pet. No. 606/2022 titled Sri Jayaraj vs. State of Karnataka, whereby under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the High Court quashed the First Information Report¹ [‘FIR’ for short] bearing No. 63 of 2021 dated 8.12.2021 for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the written submissions filed by the parties across the Bar.

3. Respondent No. 1-Jairaj stands exonerated in the departmental proceedings in relation to an inquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint with regard to the allegations of demand for bribe. As a consequence thereof, the FIR in Crime No. 63/2021 registered on the basis of the complaint made by the instant appellant, stands quashed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide its impugned judgment.

4. Briefly set out, the facts are, that the marriage of the instant appellant was solemnized on 21.7.2006. During the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 373

SANJAY KAROL, P. B. VARALESanju Rajan Nayar – AppellantVersusJayaraj – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

SANJAY KAROL, P. B. VARALE
Sanju Rajan Nayar – Appellant
Versus
Jayaraj – Respondent