Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 421 (MP)

Chandrabali Prasad Pandey v. State of M. P.

2018-04-24

NANDITA DUBEY, S.K.SETH

body2018
ORDER Seth, J.--1. In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicant is seeking quashment of FIR dated 12.10.2017 registered by the Special Police Establishment-Lokayukt on the basis whereof Crime No. 231/2017 has been registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that at the relevant point of time, applicant was working as Deputy Commissioner in Municipal Corporation, Singrauli, District-Singrauli. He was also assigned additional charge of Health Officer. A complaint in writing was made to Special Police Establishment/Lokayukt by one Pramendra Kumar Singh who is the Secretary of Soach Educational and Social Welfare Society, Singrauli alleging that the applicant has demanded illegal gratification for clearance and payment of two bills submitted on behalf of the Society for having performed the work of door to door collection of garbage and baseline survey in respect of 14 wards of the town of Singrauli. Complainant did not want to pay the bribe. 3. On the basis of said complaint, after recording conversation, an FIR was registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and later on section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2012 were added and thereafter investigation is in progress. Hence, this petition to quash the FIR. 4. We have heard rival contentions at length and perused the material available on record. 5. It is well settled principle of law that if the allegation made in the FIR are taken at their face value constitute offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such FIR should not be quashed. 6. In the case of “Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P., reported in AIR1999 SC 2554”, it has been held by their Lordships as under : “It is true that under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions “abuse of the process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code.” 7. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically specified in the section itself. 8. The law relating to quashing of the FIR is well-settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 37 , wherein it has been held as under : “Great care should be taken by the High Court before the embarking to scrutinizes the FIR/charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence.” 9. In view of the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arun Shankar Shukla (supra), we are conscious of limitations and it would not be in ends of justice to torpedo the criminal investigation in the mid-session. It is not one of those rarest of rare case, which calls for exercise of inherent powers. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present petition, therefore, present MCrC under section 482 of the CrPC is hereby dismissed. 11. Ordered accordingly.