The absence of cogent evidence of intent to deceive and the reliance on anonymous complaints in the absence of proper institutional checks led to the quashing of the FIR against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to quash the FIR dated 12.06.2014 being No. RC-08 (A), 2014/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi and subsequent proceedings emanating out of the said FIR pending for trial for the offences punishable under section 120-B read with 420/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. In the present case, FIR was registered on 12.06.2014 and on the same day, CBI registered separate FIRs in identical cases of ex-Rajya Sabha members namely Mr.Brajesh Pathak and Mrs.Renu Bala Pradhan. But this court vide order dated 11.04.2017 quash the proceedings against Mr.Brajesh Pathak in Crl.M.C. 1127/2015 and subsequent proceedings thereto. The said order has attained finality. However, in the case of Mrs.Renu Bala Pradhan, this Court in Crl.M.C. 2251/2017 vide order dated 18.07.2017 directed the Trial Court not to pass the order on charge. Till then, interim order in the said case is continued.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the declared guidelines of the respondent available on their website, www.cbi.nic clearly states that "CBI does not entertain anonymous/pseudonymous complaints."

4. Moreover, section 4(6) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 states as under:

"no action shall be taken on public interest disclosures by the competent authority if the disclosure does not indicate the identity of the Complainant or public servant making public interest disclosure or the identity of the Complainant or public servant is found incorrect or false."

5. In addition to the above, there are clearly defined CVC guidelines and Air India Vigilance guidelines which reiterate the said position that anonymous/pseudonymous complaints shall not be entertained.

6. It is further submitted that the allegations in the present FIR points towards an overall loss to the exchequer to the tune of INR 5,75,135/- arising out of the alleged wrongful claims of TA/DA by the petitioner by producing companion free tickets for reimbursement. The nine tickets so alleged pertain to the period 14.02.2012-05.03.2012 immediately preceding the last month of his retirement as Rajya Sabha Member.

7. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted fact by the respondent that the TA/DA claim format was not filled by the Petitioner and he has only signed the same which can be corroborated from the CFSL report. The limited allegations are about the counter signatures only, whereas, admitted by the Respondent that the Petitioner like in the case of the other two ex-MP's had no communication or correspondence in emails with the travel agent or with Air India.

8. However, each Rajya Sabha Member is entitled to various facilities and amenities by virtue of their official position on a year basis. As such, every Rajya Sabha Member is entitled to 34 free single air journeys in a year as well as unlimited number of Air Journeys for official work. Moreover, out of these 34 free air journeys, spouse or companion of a Member is entitled to travel alone upto to a maximum of 8 air journeys in a year. The relevant portion of the RAJYA SABHA HANDBOOK where the travel entitlement has been recorded is extracted herein:

"4.2 TRAVE