SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Criminal Misc. No.30307 of 2018
(7.3.2025)
Shashi Shekhar ... Petitioner
vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation Through D.I.G. of Police ... Opp. Party

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s S.K. Shrivastava, Apurv Harsh, Manu Tripurari, Shubhi Shrivastava, Raghu Raj Pratap, Gaurav Sharma.
For the Opp. Party : M/s Avanish Kumar Singh, Ambar Narayan, Barkha, Mukul Kumar Singh.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Illegal gratification – Cognizance of offences – Power to quash should be used sparingly and with abundant caution – Case at hand is a trap case based upon reliable source information – This is a case where charge-sheet has been filed after investigation and cognizance has been taken against petitioner – Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in absence of direct, oral or documentary evidence – From perusal of First Information Report and charge-sheet, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from allegation put forth against petitioner – Investigation and order taking cognizance are not so erroneous that allowing trial to progress may cause miscarriage of justice – Application dismissed. (Paras 33, 34, 38, 45, 47 and 48)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Power to quash shall not be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution – Power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution – First Information Report /complaint or even charge-sheet is not required to verbatim reproduce legal ingredients of offence alleged – If necessary factual foundation is laid in complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, proceedings should not be quashed – Quashing of criminal proceeding is warranted only where First Information Report/ complaint or evidence collected during investigation is so bereft of even basic facts, which are absolutely necessary for making offence. (Para 33)

Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Special Case no. 03/2017 [R.C. No. 15 (A) /2017], registered under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The prosecution case, as culled out from the records of this case, is as follows:

4. On 23.08.2017, the First Information Report, bearing RC0232017A0015 was registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Patna, against three accused persons, namely, Shashi Shekhar (petitioner), Raj Kumar Agarwal and Dilip Kumar Agrawal.

5. The petitioner, while posted and functioning as Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement(ED), Patna, during the year 2017, in conspiracy with Raj Kumar Agarwal of M/s Set Square Holding Private Limited, by abusing his official position as public servant, has been obtaining and accepting illegal gratification from different persons as a motive or reward for discharging his official duties and has illegally collected more than Rs. 10 lacs, which was parked with co-accused Raj Kumar Agarwal, a businessman with the motive to take back the same in the garb of a lawful income at a later date.

6. It has further been alleged that in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy, the petitioner demanded from Raj Kumar Agarwal the proceeds of the illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs parked by him and kept with Raj Kumar Agarwal to be delivered to the petitioner in his office at Patna or at any other place along with some blank cheques through Dilip Kumar Agrawal, who is nephew and representative of Raj Kumar Agarwal.

7. After registration of the First Information Report, a trap team was constituted, consisting of CBI officials and two other independent witnesses, in line with the tip received from the source and it was informed to everyone that Shashi Shekhar is arriving at Patna Airport by GO AIR Flight No. G8-131 and will be landing at Patna at 02:10 PM on 23.08.2017 and after arrival at Patna, he was to go to his office situated at Bank Road, Patna. Thereafter, he would proceed to his residence situated at Flat no. 506, Maharaja Kameshwar Residential Complex, Fraser Road, Patna.

8. Acting on the said information, trap team waited discreetly at the exit gate of the Patna Airport. After sometime, the petitioner came out of the Airport with a red trolley bag and he boarded a Hyundai I10 car and proceeded towards his office. The Trap team followed him discreetly. The petitioner reached his office and went inside and after some time, he came out of his office and boarded a Maruti WagonR car and reached his residential flat. The petitioner came out of the car and went inside his residential flat. The Trap Team waited outside the residential complex of the petitioner and after some time, a person, whose face was similar to the photograph of Dilip Kumar Agrawal provided by the source, arrived with a white polythene bag on a coffee-coloured Honda Activa Scooty and he went inside the residential complex. After some time, Dilip Kumar Agrawal came out of the residential complex and started his Scooty. At that moment, one of the member of the Trap Team, namely, Nitesh Kumar, TLO, intercepted him and after disclosing his identity, interrogated him before the independent witnesses and on such interrogation, he disclosed his name as Dilip Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Sawan Mal Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s New Dilip and Company, situated at Langar Toli, Patna. He further disclosed that he had gone inside the residential complex to hand over one envelope to the petitioner, as per the instructions of his maternal uncle (mama), namely, Raj Ku

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top