IMPORTANT POINT
The demand for an undue advantage by a public servant, even if not linked to improper performance of duty, constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allowed with costs and the impugned FIR bearing No. 110/2023 dated 09.05.2023 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh, Police Station C.P.S., Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as Amended 2018) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and any further proceedings in pursuance thereof may also kindly be declared to be illegal and quashed.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently working as a Civil Head Constable at Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad (Karnataka). An FIR (Crime No. 121/2022) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366-A, 370 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 came to lodged against nine named accused persons at P.S. Vidyagiri. The present petitioner along with A.S.I. S.M. Naikar, H.C. 1674-P.B. Hiragannavar and W.P.C. Smt. Manjula Parakale were entrusted with the duty to conduct investigation into the matter. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, under the directions of higher officials of the department, visited village Daman, which falls under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, in connection with the investigation of said FIR/Crime No. 121/2022. In pursuance thereof, the Victim girl- ‘A’ and accused person- Arpit were recovered from the house of one Bhawna Joshi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he had demanded bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Bhawana Joshi, failing to which the petitioner threatened to arrest her and her husband Gordar Lal in connection with the FIR (Crime No. 121/2022) registered at P.S. Vidyagiri.

4. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was not the Investigating Officer of the matter arising out of the said FIR (Crime No. 121/22) and therefore, he neither had any control over the investigation being conducted against the accused persons nor was he in a position to falsely implicate any person in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had demanded bribe from Bhawana Joshi and therefore, he cannot be booked for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case pertaining to FIR Crime No. 121/2022) had already submitted the charge-sheet against Bhawna Joshi and 8 others before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, Karnataka and therefore, it cannot be said that any investigation in connection with the FIR/Crime No. 121/2022 was pending with the petitioner. Thus, no cognizable offence can be sufficiently made out for investigation against the present petitioner.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no material evidence is available on record or has been collected by the Investigating Agency to prove that the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act are existing in the present case so as to implicate the present petitioner. While citing the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) 3 SCR 735: AIR 1992 SC 604, learned counsel submitted that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of any prima facie material amounts to an abuse of process of law. As such the proceedings in the present case against the petitioner requires to be quashed by this Court by exercising inherent powe