Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 1307
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Vinod Walia
Versus
State (C.B.I.), Chandigarh
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4755M of 1997,
Decided On : AUGUST 27, 1997
The High Court has the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases where the allegations do not constitute an offence, where there is no evidence to support the allegations, or where the proceedings are malicious or mala fide.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF FIR - CONSPIRACY - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 7 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 120-B - HIGH COURT'S POWER TO QUASH FIR - GUIDELINES - ABSENCE OF PRIMA FACIE CASE - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Revenue Accountant, was accused of conspiracy with a Junior Engineer to demand and accept a bribe from a complainant who had received an inflated electricity bill. The complainant had applied for rectification of the bill, and the petitioner had marked the application to the Junior Engineer for verification of the load. The Junior Engineer had demanded a bribe from the complainant, claiming that he had to pay a portion of it to the petitioner. The complainant paid the bribe to the Junior Engineer, who was caught in a trap by the CBI. The petitioner was charged with conspiracy under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence of conspiracy. The Court noted that the petitioner had no direct or indirect involvement in the demand or acceptance of the bribe, and that the Junior Engineer's representation to the complainant that he had to pay a portion of the bribe to the petitioner was a bald statement that could not be relied upon. The Court also found that the petitioner's act of marking the application to the Junior Engineer for verification of the load was not sufficient to establish a conspiracy between them.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at face value, constitute an offence under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether the High Court can quash the FIR in the absence of a prima facie case against the petitioner? 3. Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at face value, did not constitute an offence under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the petitioner and the Junior Engineer, and that the petitioner's act of marking the application to the Junior Engineer for verification of the load was not sufficient to establish such a conspiracy. 2. The Court held that it had the power to quash the FIR in the absence of a prima facie case against the petitioner. The Court relied on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, which allow the High Court to quash an FIR in cases where the allegations do not constitute an offence, where there is no evidence to support the allegations, or where the proceedings are malicious or mala fide. 3. The Court held that it could invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was being subjected to unnecessary harassment and mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him, and that it was in the interests of justice to quash the FIR.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner. The Court held that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence of conspiracy, and that the proceedings were an abuse of process of law. The Court also directed that the quashing of the FIR would not affect the prosecution's right to proceed against the Junior Engineer.
1. Shri Vinod Walia, Assistant Revenue Accountant, working in the office of the S.D.O., Electricity Operation, Sub Division. No. III, Sector 18, Chandigarh, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., against the respondents with a prayer for quashing the case Crime No. RC-47/96-CHG registered by the C.B.I./S.P.E., Chandigarh, on 23-9-1996 for the offence under Sections 120-B, I.P.C. read with Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so far as it allegedly pertains to the petitioner.
2. On a complaint made by one Shri Ram Prakash Rana, House No. 2030, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, on 23-9-1996 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Sector 30, Chandigarh, case Crime No. 47/96-CHG has been registered against Rajinder Kumar, Junior Engineer, and the petitioner. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complaint is the proprietor of M/s. Blue Moon Tourist Bungalow, carrying on business in House No. 2030, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, Shri Balwant Singh is the owner of the said bungalow, who purchased the same from Shri Kartar Singh. The complaint had taken the said bungalow on rent from Shri Balwant Singh. There were two electricity meters installed in the said house and the sanctioned load of each meter was 3 K.W. On 10-9-1996 the complaint received bill No. 72301 for Rs. 8236/- to be paid on or before 23-9-1996 in respect of one of the meters having A/C No. 103/2106/203001. The meter reading mentioned in the bill was not correct. The bill was for much high amount. The normal consumption per month against this meter was approximately 250 units, whereas that time the bill for the consumption of 4982 units was received. On the same day, i.e., 10-9-1996 evening the complainant happened to meet the meter reader and told him about the wrong meter reading. The meter reader inspected and asked him to give him (the meter reader) an application along with one photography of the bill and told him that he would get the bill rectified. Accordingly, the complainant gave him an application addressed, to the S.D.O., Electricity Department, Sub Division No. III, Sector 18-A, Chandighar. On 14-9-1996 three persons from Electricity Department came and inspected themeter reading as 1839. Again on 16-9-1996 some other meter reader of the Electricity Department came along with an application and the photocopy of the bill and the inspected the meter and noted the reading as 7897. On 19-9-1996 the complainant again went to the Electricity Office in Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, along with Dr. O. P. Verma, and met Shri Vinod Walia, Accounts Officer, present petitioner, who tried to locate the application dated 10-9-1996, but it was not readily available. He asked the complainant to give another application, which was prepared by Mr. O. P. Verma. On this application Shri Vinod Walia asked Shri Rajinder Kumar, Junior Engineer, to verify the load and report. The application remained with the complainant as in the meanwhile has earlier application dated 10-9-1996 was traced and the petitioner recorded a fresh note on that application. On the same day at about 4 p.m. Shri Rajinder Kumar, Junior Engineer, came to the guest house of the complainant along with one person and inspected the meter and the meter and the entire load of the building. On that day he demanded Rs. 1,000/- and told the complainant that he would have to pay Rupees 500/- to Shri Vinod Walia also. Shri Rajinder Kumar also told the complainant that there was no other way out for getting the bill rectified and the money would have to be paid for the same. Ultimately, he gave Rs. 1,000/- to Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Junior Engineer, in the guest house on that day because a marriage party from Parwanoo (H.P.) had also come and he did not want to create any problem for himself. On 20-9-1996 at about 8 p.m. Shri Rajinder Kumar, Junior Engineer, suddenly came in the presence of he marriage party and started creating problem. He questioned the complainant why the extra lights
