Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 410 (JHR)

Naresh Kumar Ramani v. State of Jharkhand

2022-04-06

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is pending in the court of Special Judge, (A.C.B.), West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while posted as Head Clerk of Chandil Sub-Divisional Office, JBVNL demanded a bribe of Rs.800/- from the complainant for giving one new electric energy connection in the name of the mother of the complainant but as the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau and submitted a written application, upon which, verification of the complaint was made by the inspector of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and during the conversation, in the course of verification, the petitioner scaled down the demand of bribe from Rs.800/- to Rs. 600/-. On 11.07.2020, a trap was laid and on the same day, the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.600/-. The bribe amount was recovered by the petitioner and denomination of the notes were tallied with the denominations mentioned in the pre-trap G.C. note Memorandum and upon the fingers of both the hands as well as left pocket of shirt of the petitioner were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has deposited Rs.680/- for security deposit, the receipt of which was provided to the informant on 26.08.2020. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has received only Rs.600/- for the charge of electric energy connection and the informant told the petitioner that he will give the remaining Rs.80/- later on and the said money was kept by the petitioner in his pocket without knowing that the informant has come with the personnel of Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not received any money as bribe and there is no independent witness and also the investigation has not been properly done in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 corresponding to Misc. Criminal Application No.196 of 2020 be quashed. 5. Learned Special P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.196 of 2020 in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020. Learned Special P.P. further submits that this is a clear cut case where the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount of Rs.600/-. It is next submitted by the learned Special P.P. that the petitioner admittedly was arrested immediately after his being caught red handed on 11.07.2020 itself hence, there is no justifiable reason to show that the receipt of Rs.680/-, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 dated 26.08.2020 relates to a transaction of Rs.600/- rather the witnesses have categorically stated in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the said amount of Rs.600/- was received as bribe. It is further submitted by the learned Special P.P. that as there is specific allegation against the petitioner of being caught in a trap red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.600/-, hence there is no justifiable reason to quash the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding and order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.196 of 2020 in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the categories of cases of course by way of illustration wherein inter alia the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Paragraph no.102 of which reads 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 extraordinary 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable 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 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. (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 FIR 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 Section 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 for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 7. After carefully going through the records, this Court finds that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of being caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.600/- for providing new electric energy connection in a trap. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the F.I.R. or for that matter the entire criminal proceeding or the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Chaibasa in Misc. Criminal Application No.196 of 2020 in connection with Jamshedpur A.C.B. P.S. Case No.05 of 2020. 8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.