2024 Supreme(Online)(RJ) 5512
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Kuldeep Mathur, J
Mahadev S/o Shri Channappa Honappanavar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4735/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ankit Choudhary
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, affirming no grounds for quashing existed.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - FIR alleging demand of bribe against public servant - Petitioner denied involvement and sought quashing of FIR - No prima facie evidence established against the petitioner - High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the investigation's validity. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court's power to quash FIR - It is exercised cautiously, especially in corruption cases, as established in judicial precedents. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a civil head constable, was alleged to have demanded a bribe in a corruption case linked to an investigation for serious IPC crimes. He argued that he wasn’t involved in the investigation and hence cannot be charged. The complainant had recorded a conversation which the prosecutor argued indicated the demand for bribes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that sufficient evidence existed to support the investigation against the petitioner, and declined to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the FIR.
Issues: The main issues included whether there was sufficient evidence to implicate the petitioner in alleged bribery and if the FIR should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court reaffirmed that FIRs related to corruption should not be quashed lightly, especially when prima facie evidence is presented against the accused.
Result: The present misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
ORDERBy way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C ., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allowed with costs and the impugned FIR bearing No. 110/2023 dated 09.05.2023 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh, Police Station C.P.S., Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as Amended 2018) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and any further proceedings in pursuance thereof may also kindly be declared to be illegal and quashed.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently working as a Civil Head Constable at Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad (Karnataka). An FIR (Crime (Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 11:53:08 PM) (2 of 7) No.121/2022) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366-A, 370 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 came to lodged against nine named accused persons at P.S. Vidyagiri. The present petitioner along with A.S.I. S.M. Naikar, H.C. 1674- P.B. Hiragannavar and W.P.C. Smt. Manjula Parakale were entrusted with the duty to conduct investigation into the matter. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, under the directions of higher officials of the department, visited village Daman, which falls under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, in connection with the investigation of said FIR/Crime No.121/2022. In pursuance thereof, the Victim girl- ‘A’ and accused person- Arpit were recovered from the house of one Bhawna Joshi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he had demanded bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Bhawana Joshi, failing to which the petitioner threatened to arrest her and her husband Gordar Lal in connection with the FIR (Crime No.121/2022) registered at P.S. Vidyagiri.
Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was not the Investigating Officer of the matter arising out of the said FIR(Crime No.121/22) and therefore, he neither had any control over the investigation being conducted against the accused persons nor was he in a position to falsely implicate any person in (Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 11:53:08 PM) (3 of 7) the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had demanded bribe from Bhawana Joshi and therefore, he cannot be booked for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case pertaining to FIR Crime No.121/2022) had already submitted the charge-sheet against Bhawna Joshi and 8 others before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, Karnataka and therefore, it cannot be said that any investigation in connection with the FIR/Crime No.121/2022 was pending with the petitioner. Thus, no cognizable offence can be sufficiently made out for investigation against the present petitioner.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no material evidence is available on record or has been collected by the Investigating Agency to prove that the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act are existing in the present case so as to implicate the present petitioner. While citing the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) 3 SCR 735:
AIR 1992 SC 604, learned counsel submitted that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of any prima facie material amounts to an abuse of process of law. As such the proceedings in the present case agains
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
