Order

Conclusion of Arguments &

Reserved on : 05/05/2026

Pronounced on : 16/05/2026

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.91/2025 dated 09.04.2025, registered at ACB Chowki, District Pali, Police Station – C.P.S. Jaipur for offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’).

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner are that the impugned FIR arises from a complaint alleging that the petitioner, along with co-accused Bhundaram (Junior Assistant), demanded a bribe of Rs.6,000/- for processing the application for family pension of the complainant’s mother. As per the prosecution case, a demand verification was allegedly conducted on 24.03.2025 and a further conversation took place on 27.03.2025, though no transaction occurred on either date. It is further alleged that on 08.04.2025, the co-accused Bhundaram alone accepted Rs.4,000/- from the complainant at Chungi Naka, Rani Bazaar. During interrogation, co-accused Bhundaram stated that he has accepted bribe at the behest of petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was made accused of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Act of 1988.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the instant criminal misc. petition, submitted that the present FIR has been registered without adhering to the mandatory requirement of Section 17A of the Act of 1988. While elaborating the submission, he contended that Section 17A of the Act of 1988 clearly mandates that before making any enquiry, inquiry or investigation by the police officer, the approval of the State Government is necessary. In the present case, no such approval was obtained and therefore, registration of the FIR is in violation of the mandate provided under Section 17A of the Act of 1988.

3.1 He further contended that even otherwise, there was no occasion for the respondents to have registered the FIR against the petitioner when no work was pending at the behest of the petitioner, based on which the allegation of bribe could have been alleged. He also submitted that the complainant alleged that bribe was demanded for clearing his mother’s pension papers. The pension was already sanctioned on 25.03.2025, therefore, the petitioner who was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer (‘AAO’) at the relevant time, had nothing to do subsequent thereto and therefore, making petitioner as an accused on the basis of the statement of co-accused Bhundaram, who was caught taking bribe of Rs.4,000/- on 08.04.2025, is actually based on a false version of the co-accused.

3.2 He submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the time of the alleged transaction nor was any recovery effected from him; however, he was subsequently implicated and arrested on 09.04.2025 solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused alleging that the amount was accepted on behalf of both.

3.3 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Himanshu Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17545/2021, decided on 19.01.2022; Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2556/2023, decided on 16.08.2024; Mahendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.281/2023, decided on 28.08.2024 and judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Prabhugowda Patil Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. : Criminal Petition No.5163/2023, decided on 21.02.2026.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as AAO and was the person before whom the file of family pension was pending. In order to clear family pension, a demand of Rs.6,000/- was initially made. Thereafter, there were certain telephonic conversations, wherein petitioner on request of the complain