A.N. Bhattacharjee And Orc vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate.

Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report registered vide Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No.481 of 2011

corresponding to G.R. No.1930 of 2011 registered under Sections 420, 406, 408, 467, 468, 469, 511, 149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 7

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is said to be pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

From perusal of the case diary as well as the status report, which has been received from the learned court below, it appears that the investigation

has not yet been completed and accordingly, cognizance has not yet been taken. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ex facie

on the face of the allegations made in the complaint petition, which was sent for investigation by police, no criminal case is made out against the

present petitioner. The learned counsel submits that there has been certain litigation in connection with entitlement of various persons of certain

pensionary benefits and the entire allegations revolve around compliance/non-compliance of the various orders passed by the various authorities

including Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted that as per the

allegations made in the complaint petition, it is alleged that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- from each employee in order to give the benefit which

they were entitled under law, but when that money was not paid, the file was suppressed and ultimately the matter travelled upto the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. The learned counsel submits that as per the allegations, the accused had stated that if the money is not paid, then they would move

before the higher forum. The learned counsel submits that considering the basic ingredients of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

only ‘demand’ is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the said Section and he submits that there is only allegation of demand of money

so far as the complainant is concerned. However, during the course of argument while placing para 36 and 37 of the complaint petition, the learned

counsel submits that although an allegation has been made that the persons, who had fulfilled the demand of the petitioner their pro rata pension was

allowed in their favour, but he submits that these are vague allegations and do not constitute any cognizable offence. The learned counsel submits that

the entire criminal proceedings arise out of malicious prosecution and therefore, it calls for interference under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The learned counsel has also referred to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is reported in( 2016) 11 SCC 357

Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab para 26 to submit that the demand and acceptance both were required to be alleged against the petitioner in order

to sustain a criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned counsel submits that considering these aspects of

the matter, the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner are fit to be set aside.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the matter is still under investigation

and he also submits that as per the allegations made in the complaint petition, there is not only an allegation of demand made against the petitioner, but

it has also been alleged that the accused persons allowed pro rata pension to those persons, who fulfilled their illegal demand of money. He further

submits that it has also come during investigation that the benefit was given to those persons who were otherwise not entitled for the pensionary

benefits. The learned counsel submits that since the matter is still under investigation, no interference is called for by this Court at this stage.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the allegations which have been made in the complaint petition, which has been sent for

investigation, this Court finds that the complainant has alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused persons including the present petitioner

and has also alleged that those persons, who had fulfilled the demand their pro rata pension was allowed. It has also been mentioned in the case diary

that the service book of one Samarendra Ghosh, was opened in 1984 and there is no entry of any work by him in the year 1974 and on this basis, it is

alleged that he was not entitled to the pensionary benefit which was given to said Samarendra Ghosh. Admittedly, the matter is still under

investigation. This Court is of the considered view that on the face of the F.I.R, it cannot be said that no case at all is made out against the petitioner.

Considering the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R and accordingly,

the present petition is dismissed.

However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner before the learned court below or before the

Investigating Officer.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.