Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 2480
PATNA HIGH COURT
Akhilesh Chandra, J.
Rubi Kumari
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal MISCELLANEOUS No. 38079 of 2005
Decided On : NOVEMBER 15, 2010
Allegations of illegal gratification and bribery must be clearly substantiated to establish a criminal offence.
Headnote:
Illegal Gratification - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Bribery
Fact of the Case:
The complaint alleged that illegal gratification was paid for a job appointment, which was not refunded, and the complainant was assaulted when requesting a refund.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no criminal offence was made out as the alleged payment was by way of illegal gratification, and if true, the complainant herself deserved prosecution. The court quashed the impugned order and the entire prosecution.
Issues: Alleged illegal gratification, non-refund of payment, vagueness in the complaint petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the alleged payment as illegal gratification, the lack of grievance against the appointment of another candidate, and the vagueness in the complaint petition.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and the entire prosecution, allowing the application.
Akhilesh Chandra, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri Gauri Shanker Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 8.4.2005 passed by Sri Ram Sakal Ram Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in Complaint Case No. 1274 of 2004 taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The opposite party no. 2 lodged the complaint with allegation that her daughter-in-law had applied for the post of Angan Bari Sewika. For that purpose on the demand of members of Selection Board a sum of Rs. -2,000/- as advance out of demanded Rs. 30,000/- was paid but she was not given appointment, contrary other candidate was appointed and when the two ladies wanted for refund of the amount then they were not only refused but assaulted also.
4. No grievance against appointment of other candidate has been raised in the complaint petition. So far alleged payment and its non-refund is concerned, the payment, if any, was undoubtedly by way of illegal gratification. Thus, if it is not refunded no criminal offence is made out rather admittedly payment of bribe is a crime. If the allegation levelled in the complaint petition is true, the complainant opposite party no. 2 itself deserves prosecution.
5. Further, considering the facts and circumstances, besides other vagueness in the complaint petition regarding nondisclosure of the name of the person making payment or taking money (bribe) etc. the impugned order and the entire prosecution is quashed and the application stands allowed.
