Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1385 (RAJ)

JALRAM PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2006-04-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who happens to be the Chief Fire Officer, has sought the quashing of FIR No. 132/05, registered at anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences under Ss. 7, 13 (l) (d) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 9-5-2003, the complainant-Shivraj Singh, the respondent No. 2, lodged a complaint with the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Department), Jaipur Rural, wherein he alleged that he and his cousin brother, Ranjeet Singh had brought a truck in partnership. On 10-1-2002 when the truck was going from Joriwas to Mahapura, carrying hay, suddenly it caught fire and was burnt. On 11-1-2002, his cousin brother, ranjeet Singh, submitted an application before the Cheif Fire Officer that a certificate about the burning of the truck may be given to him. However, till date the said certificate was not issued by the chief Fire Officer. He further alleged that on 25-4-2003 his cousin brother again submitted an application for seeking the said certificate. On 26-4-2003, he met with the petitioner who told him that in case he were paid Rs. 5. 000/-as illegal gratification for the said certificate, he would issue the said certificate. The petitioner further directed him to contact one sanjay Sharma who would ensure that the certificate is prepared. According to the complainant, again he met the petitioner who again demanded the illegal gratification. Allegedly, the petitioner told the complainant that unless the said amount is paid, the said certificate would not be issued. When he contacted Sanjay Sharma and told him that he had already paid the said amount on an earlier occasion, Sanjay Sharma informed him that, that amount was paid to the previous Chief Fire Officer. Therefore, he was required to again pay the said amount. Since the complainant had already paid the amount on an earlier occasion, this time he decided that he wanted to get the Chief Fire officer and Sanjay Sharma caught red handed while accepting the bribe. Therefore, he requested the Anti-Corruption Bureau to lay the trap for the corrupt officers. On the basis of this application, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid the trap. On 14-5-2003 the complainant informed the officers of the anti-Corruption Bureau that this morning sanjay Sharma met him and told him to come to the office and bring Rs. Therefore, he requested the Anti-Corruption Bureau to lay the trap for the corrupt officers. On the basis of this application, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid the trap. On 14-5-2003 the complainant informed the officers of the anti-Corruption Bureau that this morning sanjay Sharma met him and told him to come to the office and bring Rs. 4,000/- for him. Upon this information, the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid the trap. When the decoy witness gave the signal, the officers entered the office where the complainant identified Sanjay Sharma and told the officers that Sanjay Sharma had taken the said Rs. 4. 000/- and had kept it under the files of the table of the Chief Fire Officer. When the officers introduced themselves to sanjay Sharma and the petitioner, the two were taken aback. The fingers of both the petitioner and Sanjay Sharma were washed and the water turned pinkish. The said mixture was sealed then and there. Subsequently, a formal FIR was chalked out on 17-5-2003 for offences under Ss. 7, 13 (l) (d) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S. 120-B, IPC against the petitioner and Sanjay Sharma. Initially the petitioner challenged the FIR by filing a writ petition before this Court, registered as sbcwp No 6329/04. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under the code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the present petition has has filed before us. ( 3 ) MR. P. C. Bhandari, the learned counsel for th ( petitioner, has vehemently argued that here is no material on record to show that any money was demanded by the petitioner, ln fact, the petitioner had merely directed the complainant to contact Sanjay sharma arid it is Sanjay Sharma who had demanded the money. Hence, for the criminal act of Sanjay Sharma, the petitioner cannot be held liable. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had merely told the complainant to deposit the required fees of Rs. 10/- and had directed Sanjay sharma to issue the necessary certificate. The learned counsel has further argued that no office under S. 7 or under S. 13 (l) (d) (2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. As far as offence under S. 120-B, IPC is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the pel itioner and Sanjay Sharma had entered into any criminal conspiracy. The learned counsel has further argued that no office under S. 7 or under S. 13 (l) (d) (2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. As far as offence under S. 120-B, IPC is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the pel itioner and Sanjay Sharma had entered into any criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the FIR should be quashed. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned P. P. has strenuously opposed the petition. According to the learned P. P. the scope for interfering with the investigation and with the FIR is a limited one. A FIR can be quashed in the rarest of the rare ccumstances. If prima facie case exist against the alleged offender, then the jurisdiction under S. 4 i2, Cr. P. C. should not be exercised. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsels for the paties and have perused the case diary. ( 6 ) IN the case of State of Haryana v. C. Bhajan Lal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) : (1992 Cri lj 527) Honble the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the conditions under which the jurisdition under S. 482 should be exercised for quaashing of a FIR or a complaint. The seven onditions are as follows :-"1. Where the allegations made in the first Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S. 156 (1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F. I. R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155 (2) of the Code. 5. 4. Where, the allegations in the F. I. R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. ( 7 ) WHERE a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " 7. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the power under S. 482, Cr. P. C. being extremely wide in its sweep, has to be exercised very sparingly. While exercising the power under S. 482 of the Code a High Court cannot act as a trial Court; it cannot meticulously examine the evidence to stifle a legitimate prosecution at initial stage. The power to investigate rests with the police. Until and unless the case falls within one of the circumstances enumerated by the honble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lais case (supra), an FIR should not be quashed, investigation should not be stifled. The police should be given a free hand to investigate the case thoroughly. The prosecution should equally be given the chance to prosecute the alleged offender. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, there is strong prima facie evidence against the petitioner for offences under Ss. 7, 13 (l) (d) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S. 129-B, Indian Penal Code. There is statement of the complainant who has described his plight in detail. There is evidence that when the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau reached the office of the petitioner, the petitioner was standing at the table where the alleged bribe money was discovered. There is statement of the complainant who has described his plight in detail. There is evidence that when the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau reached the office of the petitioner, the petitioner was standing at the table where the alleged bribe money was discovered. The said amount of Rs. 4,000/- was discovered on the petitioners table itself. The fact that when the petitioners fingers were washed, the water turned slightly opaque and pinkish is a clearcut indication that he had handled the money which was recovered with phenolphthalein powder. When the petitioner was caught red handed, he could not give any cogent justification for the amount found on his table. Although the money was not recovered from his person, but it was recovered from the table where he was standing. Hence, it was recovered, for all practical purposes, from his possession. Since prima facie case exists against the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the FIR at this initial stage so as to stifle a legitimate investigation and prosecution. The menace of corruption is a cancerous epidemic which has tenticles in the far nooks and corners of this country. The cancerous growth of corruption has to be tacked at a war footing. For, corruption is eating the vitals of this country. It is corruption which is preventing this country from emerging as a developed country. At least those who are caught red handed, they should be asked to face the trial squarely. Neither the laws nor the Courts comes to rescue of those who abuse and violate the sanctity of law. ( 9 ) IN the result there is no merit in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.