Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pratibha Rani, J.
R.P. Malik —Petitioner
versus
State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. —Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) 545/2003
Decided on 22.05.2013
Important Points
Issue requiring appreciation of evidence cannot be dealt with under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Subject
CORRUPTION - BRIBERY
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.12
Headnote
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing—To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court has to be fully satisfied that material produced by accused is such that would lead to conclusion that his defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; material produced is such as would rule out and displace assertions contained in charges levelled against accused and material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule veracity of allegations contained in accusations levelled by prosecution/ complainant—It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard accusations levelled by prosecution/complainant, without necessity of recording any evidence—For this material relied upon by defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality—Material relied upon by accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn actual basis of accusations as false—In such a situation, judicial conscience of High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of court and secure ends of justice. (Para 22)
(iii) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 12—Constitution of India—Article 226 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Abetment of offence—For an offence under Section 12 of P.C. Act offer to bribe would amount to abetment irrespective of fact whether cash was placed before public servant or not and whether he agrees to accept the same or not—Mens rea of bribe giver is relevant consideration for purpose of offence under Section 12 of P.C. Act—It cannot be said that charge sheet does not disclose commission of offence under Section 12 of P.C. Act—It is not discernible from record that ACP filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint at behest of person and his family members with whom petitioner is litigating—Subsequent conduct of ACP on getting information from his residence about packet left and currency notes recovered, cannot be judged on the basis of probabilities at this stage, as it is subject matter of trial—There is no hard and fast rule as to how a person would react in a given situation—Everybody has his own way to react in given situation and circumstance—In case of well planned false implication of petitioner under Section 12 P.C. Act, version of complainant would have been foolproof to the extent that petitioner would have been got arrested then and there—Litigation under Section 138 N.I. Act being initiated by petitioner, police had hardly any role to play in that dispute—Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 to 49)
Result: Criminal Writ Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aman Lekhim Sr. with Mr. J.K. Chawla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Addl. standing Counsel for the State with ACP Sheel Nidhi, Advocates.
Pratibha Rani, J.—In the year 2003, the petitioner R.P. Malik filed this Criminal Writ Petition No.545/2003 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC for issuance of appropriate writ or direction for quashing the FIR No.60/2000 under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C. Act’) as well the charge sheet and the proceedings arising there from. In addition, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs (in prayer clause (iii) the amount of compensation is given in numbers as Rs.10,00,000/-, but in words as Rupees Fifty Lacs) as compensation to the petitioner as a public law remedy.
2. Case FIR No.60/2000 was registered on 28.11.2000 under Section 12 of P.C. Act against the present petitioner at Anti Corruption Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on the basis of complaint made by ACP Rajeev Ranjan who was posted as ACP/HQ/OPS/East. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been filed in this case. However, the charge sheet was consigned to Record Room by learned Special Judge (ACB), Delhi vide order dated 08.02.2011 extracted below: 08.02.2011
Present : Shri B.S. Kain, Ld. APP for the State. Accused on bail. Accused submits that the appeal filed by him has been admitted by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In these circumstances, let the file be consigned to the record room to be revived as soon as the records are received from the Hon’ble High Court.
Special Judge (ACB) Delhi/08.02.2011
3. This criminal writ petition was admitted on 08.12.2010 and ordered to be listed in due course before the Roster Bench.
4. Before this criminal writ petition could come up for hearing in due course, Crl. M.A. No.4991/2013 was filed by Naveen Soni for direction to the Trial Court for adjudication and trial of the case. In the application, while giving the background of the litigation between him and the petitioner R.P. Malik, it was brought on record that due to the pendency of this writ petition, Trial Court has also stopped the proceedings against the petitioner despite the fact that there is no order to stay the proceedings before learned Trial Court. The case being under Prevention of Corruption Act, in view of Section 19(3)(c) of P.C. Act, there cannot be any stay of proceedings before the Trial Court. Thus, the trial against the petitioner should proceed.
5. Crl. M.A. No.4991/2013 was listed before this Bench alongwith the record of Criminal Writ Petition No.545/2003. Noticing that writ petition of the year 2003 seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet is pending for a decade, efforts were made to expedite the hearing.
6. Reference to the background in which this writ petition has come up for hearing has been necessitated in view of the statement made on behalf of petitioner to point out the motive of the applicant Naveen Soni behind moving this application that resulted in the writ petition being taken up for final hearing and disposal.
7. In order to appreciate the contentions and the grounds on which the quashing of FIR and charge sheet has been sought by the petitioner, it is necessary to give in brief the facts leading to registration of FIR No.60/2000 under Section 12 of P.C. Act at ACB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
8. The case of the petitioner is that he was retired Chief Administrative Officer of District Court, Delhi and also a former Executive Magistrate, Delhi having high reputation, goodwill and status in the society. The petitioner is associated with a renowned Educational Society running number of public schools in East Delhi and is a well known personality of the area for his social, charitable and philanthropic activities. He is an income tax payee showing high income in his income tax returns.
9. The petitioner claims that he is a victim of conspiracy hatched by Naveen Soni, his parents and brother Vikas Soni and their associates inc
