JUDGMENT AND OREDR :

Should the High Court in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, set aside and quash the First Information Report (in short, FIR) as well as the investigation, which commences pursuant to the FIR, which alleges existence of circumstances indicating possibilities of commission of cognizable offences? This is the basic question, which this case has raised.

2. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Code’) the petitioner has approached this Court seeking orders setting aside and quashing the FIR, which has resulted into registration of Vigilance Police Case No. 67/2016, under Sections 7/8/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner.

3. The First Information Report, which is under challenge, discloses, in brief, thus:

(i) On 08.07.2016, one Jaspreet Singh, the driver of truck No. HR-58A-9867, filed an FIR against the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mohaniya, district-Bhabhua, alleging, inter alia, that on 03.07.2016, in the morning hours, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, along with his men, came, in a Scorpio vehicle and seized the documents of four vehicles including that of the petitioner.

(ii) Thereafter, so discloses the First Information Report, the informant went to the residential office of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and pleaded for release of the vehicles’ documents. According to the informant, the accused/petitioner asked him to meet his driver, Sanjay, and do what Sanjay asked. The informant claims to have accordingly approached Sanjay, all the vehicles belonging to one and the same owner.

(iii) The FIR alleged that Sanjay demanded a sum of Rs. 90,000/ for release of the vehicles’ documents. At that time, the informant approached the Vigilance Police.

(iv) A trap was laid and the demanded money was recovered from the possession of co-accused Sanjay, who gave a statement that he had collected the money on behalf of the petitioner.

(v) Based on the action taken report of the incharge of the trap team, the Vigilance PS case got initiated. A raid was conducted at the official residence of the accused/petitioner and the documents of the truck were found from a Tata sumo vehicle parked in the compound of the said house.

4. Assailing the FIR lodged against him and the investigation that has since been pursued, in the course of which he was arrested, the petitioner has moved this Court seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and/or exercise of inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR and close the investigation. The petitioner has canvassed before the High Court that soon after taking over charge as Sub-divisional Magistrate Mohaniya, he had taken, was instructed by the Government, several measures to stop the illegal practice of over loaded trucks running on the National Highway and, in the process, he had annoyed the mafia controlling the wrong-doers and also some policemen involved in the illegal business of allowing over-loaded trucks to pass through since long. According to the petitioner, the present FIR is an attempt to frame him in false case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of no material against the petitioner and my attention has been drawn to the fact that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not directly demanded any money from the informant or from the driver of the other three trucks. It has been argued that primary pre-requisite of an offence, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is proof of demand or request for valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from a public servant and, hence, absence of allegation for demand goes to show that prosecution’s case is bound to fail.

6. Mr. S. Datta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has argued that there is not even an allegation that any money was paid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document