The court upheld the need for further investigation based on specific allegations and recovery of tainted money, dismissing the challenge to the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioner has challenged FIR No.12/2022 of Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau Baramulla for offence under Section 120-B IPC. As per the impugned FIR, on 12.04.2022 complainant Tanveer Ahmad Dar lodged a report with respondent No.2 alleging therein that some officials of the PDD Department Tangmarg Division, including the petitioner, have demanded bribe of Rs.2,60,000/- from him for upgrading the electricity consumption/sanction load from 63 kv to 250 kv. According to the complainant he being not willing to pay any bribe to the petitioner and the co-accused seeks action against the culprits. On the basis of this report, the impugned FIR came to be registered and the trap was laid by a team constituted by the respondents. The petitioner has placed on record report of respondents which shows that a successful trap was laid by the respondents against the petitioner and the co-accused and they were arrested on 14.04.2022.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that no money has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the trap proceedings and that the impugned FIR is ex-facie abuse of process of law. It has been further contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner from a bare perusal of the impugned FIR. It has been submitted that the petitioner had already been suspended on 13.04.2022 in connection with a case relating to electrocution of an employee, as such, there was no question of his being involved in the demand of illegal gratification from the complainant. It is further contended that as per report of the Committee constituted for conducting spot inspection of the unit of the complainant, it was found that the complainant has committed theft of electricity. Thus, the impugned FIR has been lodged by him with a mala fide intention.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

4. An FIR can be quashed only if its contents do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence or if the material collected during the investigation of the case do not support the allegations made in the FIR.

5. In the instant case, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he alongwith co-accused had demanded bribe of Rs.2,60,000/-from the complainant. The material on record suggests that pursuant to the registration of FIR a trap was laid and the tainted money was recovered pursuant to the trap proceedings. According to the petitioner nothing was recovered from him and that he has been roped in unnecessarily. Even if it is assumed that the tainted money was not recovered from the petitioner, the question whether the money recovered from the co-accused was accepted by them on behalf of the petitioner is a matter of investigation, particularly when there are specific allegations in the impugned FIR that the petitioner had also demanded bribe from the complainant.

6. So far as the contention regarding mala fide nature of the prosecution against the petitioner on account of fact that the complainant himself has been found to have committed theft of electricity, is concerned, the same is also a matter of investigation and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot hold a mini trial to test the merits of the defences put up by the petitioner.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.