The court emphasized the requirement to consider the entire record, including the first police report and the closure report filed by the C.B.I., when considering a discharge petition, and the sufficiency of materials for framing of charge based on the earlier cognizance order and the charge-sheet filed by the A.C.B.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I appearing on behalf of the respondent-C.B.I.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in F.I.R No.RC-219/2011E/13 whereby discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the matter is pending before the said learned court. Subsequently by way of filing I.A. order framing charge dated 19.01.2019 was also challenged which was allowed to be challenged by order dated 03.09.2019.

3. The Vigilance case was registered alleging therein that one FIR Vigilance Case No.38 of 2010 dated 30.08.2010 was registered by the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder 29 persons were named as accused in the said FIR. The said FIR was the result of an appraisal report prepared in pursuance of search and seizure operation conducted on 21.10.2009, 23.12.2009 and 16.02.2010 by Income Tax Department in the premises of M/s IVRCL. As per the investigation conducted by the Income Tax Department, huge amount of bribe paid to different government servant during the process of allotment of tender of IVRCL.

4. Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Vigilance has registered a case being Vigilance Case No.38 of 2010 dated 30.08.2010 against 29 persons and the petitioner is named as an accused. In the said vigilance case, the charge sheet has been submitted. He submits that in W.P.(PIL) No.4700 of 2008 and W.P.(PIL) No.2255 of 2009 by order dated 04.08.2010, the Division Bench directed the C.B.I. to take over the investigation and proceed and file the investigation report. The C.B.I registered the case as R.C.-219/2011E/0013. He submits that the C.B.I submitted the closure report on 18.10.2013 as contained in Annexure-6 of the petition. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph no.28 of the said report, he submits that it has come that the allegation of taking of money for award of tender was without basis and that allegation shall be dealt in later stage. By way of referring to paragraph no.46 of the said report, he submits that scrutiny of individual account is there and nothing has been found in the account of the petitioner. He submits that in paragraph 74 of the said report, it has come that this petitioner is acted as associate of Madhu Koda and besides this, no specific role has been played by the petitioner is mentioned in the PIL. He further submits that D.K.Srivastava, (Jt. General Manager) of M/s IVRCL has also not supported which has come at paragraph no.51 of the said report. By way of referring paragraph no.75 he submits that Durga Oraon who was the petitioner in the PIL was also not supported. By way of referring paragraph no.76 of the said report, he submits that no incriminating information was found on expert analysis of C.F.S.L, New Delhi. He refers to paragraph no.77 of the said report, and submits that even no conversation is found of this petitioner on the mobile of the persons disclosed therein. By way of referring paragraph no.80 of the said report, he submits that closure report has been submitted by the C.B.I. By way of referring this report, he submits that sufficient materials are not there and inspite of that, the learned court has rejected the discharge petition filed by this petitioner. He submits that by order dated 11.12.2013 on the point of accepting of closure report it has been recorded by the learned court that the same shall be considered at the time of framing of charge and without considering the materials on record, the learned court has rejected the discharge petition. He submits that on 09.01.2019 the charge has been framed against the petitioner and charge framing order is also not in accordance with law. He further submits that the charge order was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.2843 of