The judgment established the principle that the absence of the accused at the time of the alleged offence does not preclude their involvement, and highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the necessity of arrest only in cases of utmost necessity.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1973/2022

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought for quashing of FIR No. 10/2020 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Section 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short "the Act") and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The challenge is on the ground that since wife of the petitioner was Chairman of the Municipality, due to political rivalry with the former Chairman, a false and concocted FIR has been lodged just to malign the image and reputation of his wife as well as of the petitioner. The petitioner has further asserted that the preliminary inquiry conducted before commencement of the FIR was mere formality and not consistent with the requirements stated in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

3. According to FIR, one Vikash Kumar Bairwa, a contractor in the PWD Department lodged complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau on 29.11.2021 stating therein that in pursuance of the Government Work Order, after acceptance of tender of the complainant, work was assigned by order dated 10.11.2020. After completion of the work within time, the complainant was running from pillar to post for clearance of his pending bill. The Chairman Smt. Sonia Soni, prepared a running bill in favour of the complainant of Rs. 3,01,915.82/-. When the complainant went to the office of Municipality, the petitioner who is husband of the Chairman and was mainly dealing with the work of the Chairman, called on different dates for 3-4 months for payment of bill amount. Ultimately, the Chairman and the petitioner asked the complainant to pay 10% of the bill amount for getting clearance of the bill. It is further stated that the bribe money for the petitioner was being received by co-accused Prem Mali, who was also a contractor in the same Department. The complainant stated that since he does not want to pay bribe to the named persons, hence the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau on different dates mentioned in the FIR verified the talk between the complainant and the accused persons which revealed that the petitioner had asked the complainant to meet Mr. Yogendra Gautam @ Manu, a contractual employee and to pay Rs. 25,000/- which was 10% of the due bill amount of 2,50,000/-. On 10.1.2022, on being asked by ACB, the complainant produced 30 notes of 500 denomination to the ACB which was to be paid to Prem Chand Mali and the remaining 5,000/- was to be paid after clearance of the bills. Chemicals were put on those notes. On 12.1.2022 along with the complainant and independent witness, the ACB Team proceeded for trapping the accused. The complainant by sign identified Mr. Premji and thereafter, the handbag containing Rs. 15,000/- was handed over to Premji. Premji disclosed his name as Prem Chand Mali. On being inquired from Prem Chand Mali, he replied that since he had supplied building material to the complainant, the money was paid by the complainant as cost of that material. Mr. Yogendra @ Monu stated to the ACB Team that the petitioner had asked him to attend the complainant and get Rs. 25,000/- for ensuring payment of his pending bills. Monu further stated that though he was not involved in the said deal, however since he was a contractual employee, he acted on the command of the petitioner who is husband of the Chairman. Thereafter the ACB Team verified the records of the pending bill. The bill was prepared by the Accountant on 18.11.2021 and was endorsed by his immediate superior to the Chairman on 9.12.2021, since then the file was pending before the Chairman. The report submitted by the ACB dated 10.10.2022 to this Court regarding progress of the investigation would show that the investigation is almost complete. The petitioner and his wife appeared before the Investigation Wing. Both were jointly and separately interrogated and involvement of the petitioner along with Yogend