Interference in cases where charge-sheet is submitted and charges are framed is not permissible at the stage of quashing the FIR.

ORDER

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, challenge has been made to the very lodging of FIR No. 74/2017 registered at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur (Out post Kota) and all consequential proceedings including submission of charge-sheet, taking cognizance and framing of charges.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie, no offence under Section 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the petitioner and therefore, filing of charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above provisions is bad in law. He further submits that the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also not made out. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. [(2015) 10 SCC 152] and referred the para 20 of the judgment and submits that in view of the judgment cited above, the proceedings against the petitioner are required to be quashed and set aside.

3. He further submits that the allegations leveled in the FIR and the material collected during the course of the investigation is nothing but a bundle of lies. The learned Judge, Special Court has failed to apply its mind before taking cognizance of the offence. It is also submitted that while framing the charges, the learned Trial Court has not acted in accordance with law as prima facie there was no material on the basis of which opinion can be formed that the accused should be put on trial.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are grave allegations in the FIR for which ample evidence has been collected during the course of the investigation. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges which requires no interference of this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Heard. Perused the material available of record, the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet as well as the order whereby the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner.

6. This Court is aptly guided by the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 9 SCC 35] propounding that the High Court should refrain from interference in cases where the charge- sheet is submitted and charges are framed since appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of hearing a petition for quashing of the FIR.

7. Prima facie, there is evidence that the accused-petitioner who happened to be Assistant Jailer at the relevant point of time at Central Jail, Kota and as per the allegations, he used to accept illegal gratification from the family members of the prisoners and if any family member of a prisoner refuse to pay the bribe, the petitioner used to treat them rudely.

8. Prior to lodging of FIR, the phone numbers of the petitioner and the other persons were intercepted, the call data record and the conversation made in between the petitioner and the other accused persons clearly reveals involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime. The transcript is available on record.

9. Since, there are other accused in this case who are not public servants, therefore, Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Act are invoked. Prima facie, there is material to show criminal misconduct of the petitioner.

10. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry so as to examine the reliability and genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR and the statement recorded during the course of the investigation, nor this Court is expected to conduct a mini trial before the actual trial. The submission made by counsel for the petitioner are devoid of any merit and thus, deserves to be rejected.

11. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the nature of allegations and