Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Babu, J.
T.A Abdul Sathar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Home Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(CRL.) NO. 407 of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 17-A, 8 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 323, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 173 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Police - Quash FIR - Petitioner was Sub Inspector of Police - He is seeking to quash FIR – Power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in rarest of rare cases - Para 21.
Finding of the Court :
In Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, wherein Apex Court held that such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when Court is of opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice - It is trite that power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in rarest of rare cases and it was not justified for this Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in Final report or complaint - Petitioner failed to convince this Court that allegations levelled against him in prosecution records made available do not disclose ingredients of Section 7 of Act -Correctness or otherwise of allegations levelled in Ext.P1 is a matter to be tested during course of investigation - It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on merits or otherwise of allegations levelled in Ext.P1 which formed foundation of registration of FIR under challenge.
Result : Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy Police Station. He is seeking to quash the FIR registered as VC No.7/2021/KTM by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kottayam Unit alleging offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').
2. Facts:
2.1. While the petitioner was serving as Sub Inspector (Law and Order) at Kaduthuruthy Police Station, he was entrusted with the investigation in Crime No.281/2021 registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the defacto complainant in V.C No.7/2021 and three others. Sri.Anil Kumar was employed as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at the Kaduthuruthy Police Station. The defacto complainant and the other accused were granted anticipatory bail. Sri. Vijay.P.Victor, the brother of the defacto complainant, approached the petitioner and Sri. Anil Kumar, in connection with the crime registered against the defacto complainant and others.
2.2. The defacto complainant alleged that the petitioner and the other accused demanded bribe through Sri.Vijay.P.Victor. Later Sri. Anil Kumar received Rs.5,000/-in March 2021 from the father of the defacto complainant and Rs.15,000/-from his brother.
2.3. On 09.08.2021, the defacto complainant contacted Sri.Anil Kumar over phone and informed that the accused in the crime were granted anticipatory bail. Sri. Anil Kumar told him that out of Rs.20,000/-given earlier, Rs.15,000/-was given to the petitioner and that he required more money as bribe. The defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the VACB. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kottayam Unit laid a trap based on Ext.P1 FIS and Sri. Anil Kumar was arrested along with the bribe money on 12.08.2021. Sri.Anil Kumar and the petitioner have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the crime.
3. Heard Sri. Anish Jose Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rekha.S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.A Rajesh, the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner in the FIS, based on which, Ext.P1 FIR has been registered. The learned counsel contended that in the given circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the present petitioner deserve to be quashed and set aside being an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically raised the following grounds in support of his plea:
(b) No preliminary enquiry as required in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., [2014 (2) SCC 1] has been conducted before the registration of the crime against the petitioner.
(c) No approval under Section 17-A of the Act was obtained in the matter.
(d) The Investigating Officer ought to have implicated the bribe giver also as an accused in view of Section 8 of the Act.
6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, per contra, contended that the materials placed before the Court prima-facie revealed a cognizable offence against the petitioner and that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory but only directory. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor further contended that the approval as provided in Section 17-A of the Act is only required where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official functions and duties. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 8 of the Act is brought out only when a person induces a public servant to perform improperly a public duty and in the present case, there is nothing to show that the defacto complainant herein or any of the accused in FIR No.281/2021 induced the petitioner or any other public servants to perform
Point of Law : Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, High Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegations made in complaint or documents accompanying same per se....
Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties - Once a constitutional court examines and satisfies itself about necessi....
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
No prior approval from the competent authority was necessary for investigation into the offence under Section 13(1) (a) of the Act alleged against him.
Point of law: Prevention of corruption – Good faith - Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an o....
The power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
