Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Sachin, s/o. Chandramani Wankhede – Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Murtizapur – Respondent
Criminal Application APL No.1482 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2026
For the Applicant : Shri Parvez Mirza.
For the Respondents: Mrs. M.A. Barabde, APP, Shri M.Hussain, Counsel.
PC Act FIRs not quashable on compromise; non-public servant abetting public servant's gratification demand for official favour liable under pre-amendment Section 12; zero tolerance to corruption prevails.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 8, 12 (pre-2018 amendment) - Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC - Offences under special statutes like PC Act or by public servants not quashable merely on compromise between complainant and accused - Zero tolerance to corruption mandated for constitutional courts - Abetment by non-public servant of public servant's demand for gratification to provide better jail facilities attracts Section 12 r/w IPC Section 107 Explanation 1 - Voice sample analysis matching communication establishes prima facie case - Old provisions apply as incident prior to amendment. (Paras 17, 18, 26, 32, 35)
(B) Advocates - Professional conduct - Expected to uphold highest integrity, not facilitate undue demands even for client benefits - Legal profession service-oriented, independence key. (Paras 29-31)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, an advocate representing person in custody for serious offence, allegedly communicated demand for money to complainant for police officers to provide good jail facilities, negotiated amount - Crime registered by anti-corruption body post verification panchanama - Investigation confirmed via voice sample match - Chargesheet filed - Subsequent settlement with complainant via affidavit.
Findings of Court:
No offence under Sections 7, 15 as applicant not public servant; offence under Section 12 made out; powers under Section 482 CrPC not exercisable for PC Act offences on compromise.
Issues: Whether FIR quashable on settlement; whether Sections 7, 12, 15 attract to non-public servant facilitating gratification demand.
Ratio Decidendi: Compromise immaterial for non-compoundable PC Act offences; abetment via instigation or aid to public servant's gratification demand punishable under Section 12 irrespective of offence commission; verification panchanama and voice matching substantiate prima facie involvement; advocate's role demands ethical compliance over facilitation.
Result: Application for quashing FIR rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir for pc act abetment; quashing sought on settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. amended sections inapplicable; applicant not public servant. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. old section 12 punishes abetment irrespective of completion. (Para 8) |
| 4. panchanama and voice analysis confirm demand communication. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. pc act offences not quashable on victim compromise. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. ipc abetment applies to pc act section 12. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. advocates not public servants under pc act. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. lawyers must uphold utmost professional integrity. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. prima facie abetment; quashing application rejected. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. By this application, the present applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.29/2018 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under Sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act) and consequent proceedings arising out of the same bearing Final Report No.111/2023 and ACB Case No.128/2023 pending before learned Special Court, District Judge-III, Akola.
3. Brief facts for disposal of the application are as under:
The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by ACB Officer Ishwar D.Chauhan on allegations that original complainant Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe approached the ACB Officer and filed a complaint that his son was arrested in connection with Crime No.1/2018 under Section 376 of the IPC and he was taken into the police custody. For providing him good facilities in jail, co- accused Deepak Tayde, through the present applicant, demanded amount initially Rs.5.00 lacs and after negotiation, Rs.1,25,000/-. After receipt of the complaint, the ACB Officer called two panchas. In presence of panchas, original complainant Rajesh Kambe disclosed his grievance. Thereafter, verification panchanama was drawn. During communication between said original complainant Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe and the present applicant, the present applicant has disclosed that for providing better facilities to his son, the amount is to be given to the police officer and Police Officer Deepak Tayde has demanded amount. During verification panchanama, it revealed that the present applicant has demanded amount for Police Officers Gaikwad and Deepak Tayde and thereby the present applicant has committed the offence of “abetment” as well as offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act by demanding gratification amount for public servant.
On the basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime against the present applicant.
During the investigation, the investigating officer has recorded relevant statements of witnesses, obtained “Voice Sample” of the present applicant as well as other co- accused and forwarded the same for analysis. A proposal for sanction has already been proposed and after completion of the investigation, he submitted chargesheet against the present applicant as well as the co-accused.
4. During pendency of this application, a settlement took place between original complainant Rajesh Kambe and the present applicant and the said original complainant filed an affidavit to that effect.
5. The present application is filed on two grounds:
First ground is that, there is a settlement between original complainant Rajesh Kambe and the present applicant.
In view of that, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Second ground is that, Sections 7, 12, and 15 of the P.C.Act are not attracted against the present applicant.
It is contended that in view of Section 7 of the New Act, i.e. the P.C.Act, 1988, requirement is that any public servant who obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with an intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perfor
