[2025:RJ-JP:45505]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3965/2016 Aminuddin son of Ameer Mohammed aged about 57 years, resident of Khatiko ka Mohalla, ward No.5, Choth ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur at present working as IVth class employee, office of Tehsildar, Chouthaka Barwada District Sawai Madhopur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

2. Najruddin son of Shri Babu Khan resident of Chouth ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Senior Counsel with Ms. Muskan Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

12/11/2025

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing FIR No.136/2015 registered by Anti Corruption Bureau for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13 (2)

of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is simply holding the post of Class-IV employee in the office of Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department and he has no role in registering any documents whatsoever. He submits that either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., allegations of demanding bribe have not been levelled against him; nor any work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner. He submits that transcript of conversation is not reliable and even otherwise bare reading of transcript would reveal that even if there is some allegation of making demand of bribe that is not for the petitioner himself and is for another person Ghasi Lal.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (13) SCC 55; P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152; A Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (6) SCC 587; State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. C.P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450; Veer Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2429/2015 decided on 06.01.2016) and Manish Beniwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1250/2023 decided on 03.10.2023) and further submits that in the cases, where there is no specific allegation with regard to demand and recovery, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the guidelines for interfering in FIR are quite specific that only in the cases, where by bare reading of FIR and other material on record, no cognizable offence is prima facie made out or in the cases, where lodging of FIR is specifically prohibited under some law or it is established that apparently, the FIR has been lodged maliciously in order to wreak vengeance, this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can interfere and can quash FIR. Whereas in the instant case, there are specific allegation of demanding bribe against the petitioner, which are supported by the statements given by the complainant as well as other witnesses that the petitioner has raised the demand of bribe of Rs.6,000/- @ 1% of valuation of the document and at his instance, bribe was accepted by the co-accused. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that mode and manner revealed in FIR supported by other material would make it clear that the petitioner along with co-accused have worked in organized manner and it appears that for getting any deed registered they have also fixed the rate of bribe. Hence, in view of the material available during investigation as well as specific contents of FIR, no case for interference is made out.

5. Heard and considered.

6. In the light of specific allegations in FIR, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as transcript of the conversation it cannot be said that no prime facie case is made out a