The court emphasized the need for judicial consistency, allowing the quashing of an FIR against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on prior judicial decisions.

Order :

1. The matters are listed today in "To Be Mentioned" Category. Learned GA cum AAG has produced the factual report dated 22.1.2025 & 03.02.2025 which are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. By filing the above criminal misc. petitions, the petitioners have questioned the very lodging of the FIR No. 479 dated 31.12.2014, registered at ACB Bikaner, Police Station ACB, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as “PC Act”) and Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sought quashing of the same.

4. The said FIR was lodged in compliance of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, PC ACT cases, Bikaner sending the complaint filed by the complainant- private respondent No.2 against the petitioners, for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said FIR was not lodged by the Anti Corruption Bureau at its own rather was registered under the instructions of the Court below upon a complaint filed by the private respondent No.2.

5. The issue involved in these matters is whether a Criminal Court can pass an order under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) for lodging case against a public servant for the offences under PC ACT.

6. An identical issue came up for consideration of this Court and has been decided by the Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ajay Kumar Gehlot vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2755/2013) decided on 12.11.2014. In that case also, the complaint was sent by the Sessions Judge, PC Act Cases, Bikaner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Ors., reported in 2013 (4) RLW 3604 (SC) quashed the order of the trial court directing to register the FIR. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a matter arising between the same parties involving the same issue has allowed the misc. petition vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.2353/2014 taking into consideration the decision rendered in Dr. Ajay Kumar Gehlot's case (supra) and before parting with the matter, following order has been passed.

"Before parting, it would be pertinent to mention that the ratio decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705 has been questioned in subsequent petition in the case of Manju Surana Vs. Sunil Arora and Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 557 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court noted divergence in judicial opinions on this issue and referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution. If a view contrary to the ratio decided in the Anil Kumar’s case (supra) is taken by the larger bench then the respondent no. 2 would be at liberty to take appropriate actions as per the permitted legal procedure."

7. In this view of the matter, in order to maintain judicial discipline, consistency and parity, the instant criminal miscellaneous petitions deserve to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petitions are allowed. The impugned FIR No.479/2014 registered at ACB, Bikaner, Police Station ACB Jaipur against the petitioners and all the consequential proceedings thereof are hereby quashed. Stay applications are also disposed of.

9. Before parting, it would be pertinent to mention that the ratio decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Ors., (supra) has been questioned in subsequent petition in the case of Manju Surana Vs. Sunil Arora and Ors. (supra) wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court noted divergence in judicial opinions on this issue and referred the matter to a larger bench for resolution. If a view contrary to the ratio decided in the Anil Kumar’s case (supra) is taken by the larger bench then the respondent no. 2 would be at liberty to