The court held that allegations of bribery against a public servant, supported by video evidence, constitute a cognizable offence, and FIRs should not be quashed unless they are patently absurd or do not disclose any offence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 04 of 2020, dated 23.07.2020 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short P.C. Act) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short IPC), registered with State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB) at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was received in SV&ACB, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. against the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation and Public Health (I & PH) Department in the year 2016 in Shah Canal Project, Sub Division Thakurdwara, District Kangra, H.P. The informant was a registered contractor of the I&PH Department. He used to work on the Shah Canal Project. Jagjit Singh, Contractor obtained work of drains in village Falai, which was worth about Rs. 4.50 Lakhs (Rupees Four Lac Fifty Thousand). Jagjit Singh gave his Power of Attorney to the informant Nitin and Neeraj Kumar to look after the work. The petitioner stopped the work. He demanded 50% of the cost of the work in cash and proceeds from the sale of the cement and bars left on the spot. The informant recorded the conversation on his mobile. The petitioner registered the case against the informant with the District Police. The recording showed that the petitioner had demanded a bribe. He had also accepted Rs.10,000/- and put the money in his pocket. He demanded Rs.20,000/- in future. The police registered the F.I.R. conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R. and presentation of the charge sheet before the competent Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the contents of the F.I.R. are false. The petitioner was not even posted at the Shah Nahar Project at Sub-Division Thakurdwara at the relevant time. He was posted in Sub-Division Thakurdwara on 01.03.2017 after the completion of the awarded work. The work is being carried out under the supervision of Rajesh Dhiman. It is impermissible to sublet the work without the written approval of the Engineer-in-charge. A detailed inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, in which the petitioner was exonerated. The complaint filed by the petitioner is pending before the learned Trial Court at Indora. The F.I.R. was registered after the lapse of three years. The petitioner was issued a ‘No Dues Certificate’ at the time of his transfer. The informant did not report any incident to the authorities. The Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind. The provisions of Section 17-A of the P.C. Act was not complied with. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.

5. Mr Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the informant lodged a false F.I.R. as a counterblast to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner against him. The F.I.R. was lodged in violation of Section 17-A of the P.C. Act. It does not disclose the commission of the cognizable offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings be quashed.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that there is a video recording showing the demand and payment of the bribe to the petitioner. The allegations in the F.I.R. constitute the commission of cognizable offence. This Court should not quash the F.I.R., therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions of learned counse