The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial court's discretion in framing charges.

ORDER :

1. These criminal revisions petitions have been filed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) dated 21.07.2022 in Criminal Case No.11/2015: State vs. Kamlesh Kumar Jeliya and Ors., by which the learned trial Court has ordered to frame charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) and Section 120B IPC.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the complainant Makkhan Lal Meena presented a report on 26.12.2014, which reads as under :

^^lsokesa]

Jheku~ iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd izFke]

Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks]

t;iqj ¼jkt-½

fo"k; %& fj'or ekaxus ds laca/k esaA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd eSa eD[ku yky ehuk fuoklh 50 foosdkuaniqje lokbZek/kksiqj dk

jgus okyk gw¡ uxj ifj"kn lokbZek/kksiqj }kjk esa dkWef'kZ;y Ldhe psrd ikdZ ds lkeus ¼pkS/kjh uflZax gkse ds ikl ctfj;k nkSlk jksM+ ,d O;kolkf;d Hkq[k.M lkbZTk 89-6X103-0¾1024-27 oxZ xt dh fuykeh lqpuk fnukad 2&12&2013 dks izdkf'kr dh x;h Fkh ftl ij eSaus vekurk jkf'k tek djkus ds mijkUr fuykeh frFkh 18&2&13 dks lokZf/kd cksyh 6-51 djksM+ :i;s yxk;h Fkh tks uxj ifj"kn }kjk Lohdkj dh xbZ Fkh fnukad 18&12&13 dks cSadks dh gM+rky gksus ij ls esus fnukad 19&12&13 dks cksyh dh 1@4 jkf'k 1-63 djksM+ tfj;s RTGS uxj ifj"kn esa tek djok nh Fkh blds ckn esa 'ks"k 3@4 jkf'k esa ls 2-97 djksM+ fnukad 31&1&2014 dks tfj;s RTGS }kjk tek djok nh xbZ Fkh esjs }kjk fuykeh esa fy;s x;s O;olk;h Hkq[k.M ij MkW0 chuk pkS/kjh voS/k fuekZ.k iwoZ ls gh dCtk dj j[kk Fkk ftls rRdky gVkus ij 'ks"k jkf'k tek djkus ds fy, es fnukad 19&2&14 o 9&4&14 dks uxj ifj"kn dks i= fy[ks ysfdu uxj ifj"kn }kjk Hkw[k.M ls vfrØe.k ugha gVk;k x;k blds ckn uxj ifj"kn }kjk fnukad 3&9&14 ds i= }kjk vfrØe.k gVk;s tkus dh lqpuk eq>s nh xbZ rFkk 'ks"k jkf'k ds fujns'k tek djkus ds fy;s fn;s okLro Hkq[k.M ls iwjh rjg dCtk ugha gVok;k x;k Fkk blds ckn uxj ifj"kn lokbZek/kksiqj dh vksj ls ,d vfUre uksfVl fnukad 24&12&14 nsfud HkkLdj lkepkj i= esa ist&16 ij izdkf'kr djok;k x;k dh 'ks"k jkf'k 1]91]00000@& :i;s e; C;kt jkf'k 35]73083@& ,oa isuYVh jkf'k 13000 dqy :i;s 22686083@& :i;s lkr fnu esa ifj"kn esa tek djkos vU;rk iwoZ esa tek 'kqnk jkf'k tCr dh tkdj Hkw[k.M iqu% fuykeh ds fy[kk x;k] bl ij eSaus uxj ifj"kn esa tkdj lEidZ fd;k rks uxj ifj"kn lHkk ifr deys'k tsfy;k vk;qDr iadt dqekj vius nyky iqfyl flikgh veqywnhu ds ek/;e ls fj'or ysdj dke djkus dh tkudkjh feyh vyeqnhu us eq> ls esjs dke ds fy;s dgk fd vxj le; dk cM+oknwaxk isyUVh o C;kt vkSj dCtk Hkh gVoknwaxk eSa bu fj'or [kksj tu izfrfu/kh] vk;qDr dks fj'or ugha nsuk pgkrk rFkk budks fj'or ysrs idM+okuk pgkrk gw¡ esjh deys'k tsfy;k vksj iadt dqekj eaxy ls futh jaft'k ;k m/kkj ysunsu ugha gS Jheku~ th dkjZokbZ djs] dkxtkr dh dksih lkFk gSA

26&12&2014

izkFkhZ]

gLrk{kj

eD[ku yky ehuk]

50 foosdkuaniwje]

j.kFkEHkksj] lokbZek/kksiqj

¼jkt½**

3. On this report, an FIR No.461/2014 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Section 120B IPC was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet against Kamlesh Kumar Jeliya, Alimuddin and Irfan Khan was submitted before the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Section 120B IPC.

4. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments passed the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 and framed the charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Section 120B IPC.

5. Aggrieved by this impugned order, these criminal revision petitions have been filed.

6. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner– Alimuddin, contended that the petitioner was not having any right, interest and authority in the matter in dispute. The petitioner-Alimuddin is a constable in the Police Department and he has nothing to do with the Nagar Parishad, Sawaimadhopur. Therefore, he cannot be said to be