Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 603
High Court of Delhi
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
R.P. Malik
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Others
W.P.(Crl) No. 545 of 2003
Decided on : 22-05-2013
For the Petitioner:Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with J.K. Chawla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Saleem Ahmed, Addl. Standing Counsel with ACP Sheel Nidhi, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfy the narrow test indicated by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
P.C. Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [S.N.Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors., P.V.Jagannath Rao & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Ors., Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors., Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr., Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P., Om Prakash vs. State of Haryana] - The court discussed the legal provisions and their interpretations in the context of quashing the FIR under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and highlighted the need for a full-fledged inquiry and appreciation of evidence before concluding the complaint to be unacceptable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking to quash the FIR and charge-sheet under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also sought compensation. The case involved a property deal dispute and allegations of bribery and conspiracy against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case, and the issue requiring appreciation of evidence could not be dealt with under Section 482 CrPC. The court also noted the delay in the trial proceedings and emphasized the need for expeditious trial.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the allegations under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the delay in the trial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its closure without a full-fledged inquiry. It also highlighted the need for a just and rightful choice in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the Trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously and emphasizing the need to resist attempts to delay criminal proceedings.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. 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:
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/08.02.20113.
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 along-with 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
