Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 188 (MP)

Bhaiyalal Panthi v. State of M. P.

2002-02-18

N.S.AZAD

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Satna, seeks quashment of FIR and registration of Crime No, 5/92 against this petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are alleged to have been committed between 1984 to 1990, by accumulating wealth disproportionate to the known sources of his income. ( 2. ) ON the basis of letter dated 17th July, 1992, written by DIG, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Karyalaya, Bhopal, which is addressed to DIG, Economic Offences, Investigation Bureau, Bhopal, which is marked as Annexure "a", it is submitted by Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate appearing for the petitioner that earlier, an investigation was carried out against this petitioner by Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, which was ultimately ordered to be dropped on 3rd July, 1992, and hence, in connection with same facts and incident, the registration of Crime No. 5/92, by recording first information report on 24-1-92 by Inspector Incharge, Investigation Bureau, Bhopal against this petitioner, for offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, is illegal which is liable to be quashed. ( 3. ) DRAWING Courts attention to the various facts contained in the documents annexed to this petition, it is attempted to justify on behalf of the petitioner that on consideration of all these documents, also the registration of first information report dated 24-1-92 by Inspector, State Investigation Bureau, Bhopal, against this petitioner, cannot be said to be justified, for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 4. ) ON consideration of letter dated 17-7-92 (Annexuer "a") written by DIG, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal, to DIG, Economic Offences, Investigation Bureau, Bhopal, it is noted that in respect of same Crime No. 5/92 registered against this petitioner in State Economic Offences, Investigation Bureau, for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the preliminary enquiry only was conducted by Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, which was filed as ordered by Director. This preliminary enquiry is not stated to have been dropped on the ground of absence of any prima facie case. This preliminary enquiry is not stated to have been dropped on the ground of absence of any prima facie case. Then, the order passed by Director, State Economic Offences, Investigation Bureau, Bhopal, on the basis of which the filing of preliminary enquiry by Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal, is informed in Annexure "a" is not filed on behalf of the petitioner. ( 5. ) THEREFORE, the registration of Crime No. 5/92 against this petitioner by Inspector/incharge, State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is neither a case of re-registration of another crime about the same facts or incident, nor the case of second investigation in respect of same incident and facts. Consequently, T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, reported in JT 2001 SC 440, does not come to the rescue of the petitioner wherein registration of second first information report in respect of same crime and fresh investigation on every information with regard to the same facts and incident, is held not permissible by Honble the Supreme Court. ( 6. ) THEN, it is informed by Shri Choudhary, Govt. Advocate that investigation is complete and police report is going to be submitted against this petitioner very soon. Then delay in filing police report (challan) alone does not justify quashment of F. I. R. for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 7. ) THUS, this petition does not merit which is, accordingly, disallowed and rejected at motion stage.