A FIR initiates criminal proceedings without needing specific role attribution; sufficient evidence during investigation upholds its validity, especially in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT :

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. By way of this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside C.R.No.1256 of 2019 filed with Mhalunge Police Chowki, Chakan, District-Pune under Sections 7 , 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 279 , 336 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, contends that, the present FIR has been filed on 27^th September, 2019 by the Respondent No. 4 against Mr. Bhanudas Annasaheb Jadhav, Senior Police Inspector at Mhalunge Police Chowki, Mr Ajay Bhapkar and one unknown person. The crux of the allegations against the accused in the FIR are that, Mr. Bhanudas Annasaheb Jadhav demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 Lakhs from the Respondent No.4 to file a favorable report in FIR No. 1010 of 2019. The FIR No. 1010 of 2019, was filed by Mr. Manish Sham Rangwani against the Respondent No.4 and others for offences punishable under Sections 420 ,465,467,468,471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Respondent No.4, instead of paying the bribe, decided to file a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau. After the trap was laid and made successful, the present complaint/FIR was filed against the said Mr. Bhanudas Annasaheb Jadhav, Mr. Ajay Bhapkar and one unknown person. That, the Petitioners name was added in the said crime at a subsequent date i.e after nearly five months. That, as Bhanudas Annasaheb Jadhav was supervising the Investigation of C.R.No.1010 of 2019, the Respondent No.4 has falsely implicated the Petitioner in C.R.No.1256 of 2019. That, no specific overt act has been assigned to the Petitioner. That, a bare perusal of the FIR shows that there is no case made out against the Petitioner. That, the allegations are against the other accused and that no role is assigned to the Petitioner.

5. Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP for the State, in reply submits that, the investigation is completed. The Petitioner has been added as an accused, as during the investigation it was revealed that, the Petitioner was actively involved in the crime and had negotiated the amount of bribe. That, during the investigation, certain transcripts have revealed the verification of demand of bribe. That, on 27^th September, 2019, there was communication between the original complainant i.e. Respondent No.4 and the present Petitioner. That, it is evident from the said transcript, that the Petitioner has negotiated the bribe amount on behalf of the main accused Mr.Bhanudas Annasaheb Jadhav. That, based on said investigation, the Petitioner’s name was added and he was arrested on 16^th January, 2020. That, the voice sample of the Petitioner has been obtained and sent to Chemical Analyzer on 6^th February, 2020 for getting an Expert’s opinion. That, the Petitioner was working as a Police Hawaldar, and that the main accused i.e. Bhanudas Annasaheb Jadhav has also made a reference to the present Petitioner, in his communication. The same is evident from the transcripts. That, based on the transcript and the other record the Investigating Agency added Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, so also, the name of the present petitioner as an accused. That, the investigation is under progress and is on the verge of completion. That, the charge-sheet is yet to be filed.

6. We have heard Advocate Mr. Dhanraj A. Lodha for the Petitioner, Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the State. We have perused the record and Affidavit-in-reply and the papers of the investigation.

7. We find that, t