While considering a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry to examine the truthfulness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR. This is a task to be undertaken by the investigating agency.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 229/2021 registered at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Siu Jaipur for offences under Sections 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B of IPC.

2. This case has come up for hearing by virtue of being listed before this Court as per the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to be filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASP’) at the Headquarter, ACB stating therein that an overview and analysis of a video clip which was being broadcasted on Zee Media Television Channel on 10.06.2021 revealed that there was a bill amount of Rs. 276 crores which was to be paid by Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur to a company named BVG in exchange for their cleaning services. It is also stated by him that there is conversation between representatives of BVG company and Mr. Rajaram Gurjar, husband of the then suspended mayor (herein after referred to as the 'mayor'), Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur regarding payment of 10 percent of the pending bill amount, i.e. Rs. 20 crores, to Mr. Rajaram, in exchange of which he would get the pending bills cleared. It was felt by the ASP that a case of taking undue advantage by using his personal influence with a public servant was prima facie made out against Mr. Rajaram Gurjar. Upon filing of the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry No. 03/2021 was registered and the investigation was handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Unit, ACB, Jaipur who had filed the complaint at the Headquarter in the first instance on 10.06.2021. On the same day, as per the FIR, the ASP received a SanDisk pendrive from reliable sources containing the audio-visual recording of the clip that was broadcasted on social media and television in which the representatives of BVG Company, including the petitioner, and Mr. Rajaram Gurjar are conversing regarding exchange of bribe in order to get the payment of pending bills cleared. When the audio and video recording contained in the said pendrive was listened to and watched by the ASP in the computer of the department, it was found that the conversation so recorded fell in the category of corrupt behaviour. Eventually, the investigation conducted in pursuance of the preliminary enquiry led to the lodging of FIR No. 229/2021 at police station CPS ACB, Jaipur on 28.06.2021 against the present petitioner as well as against Mr. Rajaram Gurjar, husband of the then suspended mayor of Jaipur, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, the other representative of BVG Company, namely Mr. Omkar Sapre and against another co-accused, namely Mr. Nimba Ram.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present matter based on fabrications and political motivation. The petitioner did not have the authority in the company to get the bills cleared and he did not make any offer of bribe regarding the same. The contents of the FIR as well as the other evidence available on record do not reflect commission of any offence, let alone an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. It was further submitted that the investigation conducted in pursuance of the filing of the preliminary enquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice as the investigation post filing of the preliminary enquiry was handed over to the Additional Superintendent, ACB who submitted the report for registration of the preliminary enquiry and was, as such, the complainant of the case.

5. It is also submitted that the alleged pendrive was not sealed and seized by ACB on the date of its receipt rather it was seized on the next day, i.e. on 11.06.2021. The contents of the pendrive can, at best, be considered as secondary piece of evidence and the agency has