Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1232 (RAJ)

Suresh Saraswat v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-27

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 164/2010 dated 18.6.2010 registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 13(l)(c), 13(l)(d) and 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. It is noticed that earlier the petitioner had preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 531/2013 before this Court, wherein also prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 164/2010 was made, however, the said petition was disposed of on 5.3.2014 in the following manner: "The present misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 164 dated 18.6.2010 registered at Police Station, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(l)(c), 13(l)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the matter is still under investigation and the same will be completed within two months. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that they have no objection with the same but the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to file a representation before the Investigating Agency during the course of the investigation which be also considered by the Investigating Agency. In view of the above, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction that the investigation in the matter be completed within two months from today. The outcome of the said investigation be filed before the Appropriate Court within the stipulated period. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved with the findings, if any against him, he will be at liberty to challenge the same afresh in accordance with law." 3. The petitioner has now filed this petition, while contending that the action of the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bikaner of sending the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was absolutely without jurisdiction and, therefore, the F.I.R. registered on the basis of the said complaint itself is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. has been committed by the petitioner and, therefore also, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. has been committed by the petitioner and, therefore also, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set aside. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since some of the co-accused persons are public servants, the Special Judge cannot order for enquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the absence of valid sanction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr., 2014(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 94. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 5.3.2014 in the earlier criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner, representation of the petitioner was considered by the Investigating Officer and after considering the representation of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has found that prima facie evidence for commission of offence punishable under Sections 13(l)(c), 13(l)(d), 13(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. is available on record, therefore, this criminal misc. petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 7. So far as contention of the petitioner that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to send the complaint of the respondent No. 2 for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner before this Court at the time of disposal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 531/2013 that he has no objection if the Investigating Agency may complete the investigation subject to the condition that they may consider his representation, the said defence is not available to the petitioner. Once the petitioner has agreed before this Court to allow the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation, the argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court of directing the Investigating Agency to conduct enquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is not available to the petitioner. 8. So far as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. 8. So far as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable on the facts because the petitioner is not a public servant and, therefore, before sending the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Special Judge was not required to obtain valid sanction from the Government. Though some of the co-accused persons are public servants, but at present, they are not before this Court, hence, the argument of the petitioner regarding absence of valid sanction before ordering for investigation is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby rejected. 9. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any Police Station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 10. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 11. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 11. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the F.I.R. in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 12. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the F.I.R. in question. 13. Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******