IMPORTANT POINT
Prior approval from the competent authority is mandatory before investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring protection against frivolous complaints.

ORDER :

Rajendra Prakash Soni, J.

1. Petitioners before the Court are the then Circle Inspector (C.I.) and the then Assistant Sub-inspector of Police Station Ganga Shahar, Bikaner and they are seeking quashing of FIR No. 14/2022 dated 18.01.2022, registered against them under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Sections 201, 384 and 120B of Indian Penal Code at Central Police Station, ACB Jaipur, District, Jaipur.

2. I have heard Shri Vikas Balia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sachin Saraswat, learned counsel Shri Chandra Sekhar Kotwani assisted by Shri Manoj Choudhary for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Shri Rajak Khan, learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file.

3. Narrated briefly, the facts appertain are that a FIR bearing number 226/2021 was registered against some persons, at Police Station Ganga Sahar, Bikaner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, related to cheating in a competitive examination. On 08.11.2021, in connection with investigation of above FIR, Jagdish Kumar ASI (Petitioner in Case No. 1380/2022) of the said police station along with four police constables, went to a firm namely “Prathviraj Enterprises” located in Delhi. This firm, owned by the complainant of present F.I.R. Surendra Dhariwal (Respondent No. 2), deals in electronic devices. They arrested the complainant, alleging that he had sold illegal devices/goods to the accused involved in the above F.I.R. As per allegations, they seized Rs. 1,02,000, two mobile phones, three CPUs, two laptops and one DVR from the complainant’s shop. The complainant was then taken to Bikaner, where he was brought to Ranidan Singh,CI (Petitioner in Case No. 1219/2022) at the police station, who allegedly beat him and demanded Rs. 5,00,000. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay, he was threatened with false charges and subsequently implicated in the F.I.R. mentioned above. After being released on bail, complainant visited the police station on 07.01.2022 to collect his belongings. However, the two policemen were not present and over the phone, they stated that his belongings would only be returned if he paid them. They also threatened to entangle the complainant in another false case.

4. When he went to the police station again in the evening, Ranidan Singh, C.I. was present. Ranidan Singh showed the complainant his three CPUs and after asking, kept one for himself and returned two to the complainant. When the complainant Surendra Dhariwal asked for the return of his money and the rest of his belongings, Ranidan Singh told him not to mention it and asked the complainant for his assistance in other cases related to his police station.

5. When the complainant came out of the chamber, Ranidan Singh and other policemen became suspicious of him. They apprehended the complainant and took him to another room, where Ranidan Singh took away his digital voice recorder. However, the complainant managed to keep a pen drive voice recorder with himself. The complainant was made to sit at the police station and was threatened with arrest under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, Ranidan Singh left the police station with the mask digital voice recorder, a mobile phone, two CPUs and a power bank. When an ACB constable Indra Singh arrived at the police station, the complainant secretly handed over him the pendrive voice recorder. The entire conversation was captured on the pendrive voice recorder. A separate F.I.R regarding the incident of Ranidan Singh fleeing with the above-mentioned goods of complainant from the police station was lodged by said Indra Singh which was registered as F.I.R. Number 13/2022 at the same police station Ganga Sahar.

6. As per case of prosecution, although the trap laid to catch the petitioners red-handed had failed, the allegation of demanding gratification was supported by a voice r