[2026:RJ-JP:2110]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1247/2025 Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Samandar Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Jahira, Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur, Presently Head Constable 1259 At Police Line Sawai Madhopur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Mohan Lal Harijan S/o Bharosi Lal, R/o Village Sevala, Police Station Piloda, District Sawai Madhopur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 334/2022 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarkshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, District Anti Corruption Bureau Chowki Karauli for the offences under Sections 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2018”) and Section 120-B IPC.

2. As per the FIR, the petitioner-accused Jagdish Singh, HC No. 1259 P.S. Piloda District Sawai Madhopur, while functioning as a public servant, demanded illegal gratification in connection with providing assistance to the complainant in complaint filed by the complainant. Initially, a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded thereafter middleman Rajulal Sharma, while accepting Rs. 10,000/- on behalf of the accused public servant, was caught red handed following that accused Jagdish accepted the tainted currency from the middleman. Subsequently, the accused was intercepted and taken to P.S. Piloda District Sawai Madhopur where hand-wash proceedings were conducted and tainted amount of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from the accused petitioner.

3. The petitioner has challenged the FIR on the grounds that no work was pending with him. It is contended that recovery was not effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no demand of bribe by the petitioner and that the alleged amount was recovered only from the co-accused and not from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the recording of the telephone conversation requires strict proof and cannot be relied upon. It is argued that the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance therefore, impugned FIR may be quashed as continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. It is submitted that the telephone conversation among the complainant, the petitioner, and the middleman prima facie establishes demand of bribe. The middleman was caught with the bribe amount in a duly arranged trap, and thereafter the amount was recovered from the present petitioner as well. The phenolphthalein test of the petitioner as well as of the middleman was found positive. It is further contended that no exceptional ground exists for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. On perusal of the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the FIR discloses cognizable offences under the “Act of 2018”. The record reflects demand of illegal gratification, supported by telephonic conversations and trap proceedings. Further, there is recovery of tainted money from the present petitioner as well as from the middleman, Rajulal Sharma and the positive phenolphthalein test establishes a prima facie linkage.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 it has been