Ashok Singh Rathore vs State of Madhya Pradesh

R.B. Dixit, J.

Petitioner Ashok Singh Rathore has moved this Court u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the investigation alleged to have been initiated by Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Gwalior, on an alleged report dated 13-8-98 by some (one) Suresh Chandra Sharma.

Subtractum of the petition is that petitioner was working in Transport Department as Sub-Inspector and presently posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Katni. The Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt of Gwalior, registered an offence at Crime No. 81 of 1968 on an alleged allegation of Suresh Chandra Sharma. At the relevant time i.e. in the month of August, 1998, the petitioner was posted in the office of Regional Transport Office, Gwalior, as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (in short A.R.T.O.). Unfortunately, the relationship of the petitioner got highly strained with the then Regional Transport Officer (in short R.T.O), Gwalior, Shri Virendra Singh Sisodiya so much so that the petitioner had to file a petition (Annex. P/1) before the State Administrative Tribunal as O.A.No. 261/1998 (Ashok Singh Rathore v. State of M. P. & two Ors.) which was filed on 19-3-1998.

Obviously due to this bitter relationship between the petitioner and Shri Sisodia, R.T.O., the petitioner was falsely implicated by Special Police Establishment. When he came to know that first information report in this case was also filed on 13-8-98 under the signature of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, he approached the department for supplying of the copy of the same on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of O.P. Shrivastava v. State of M. P. (Misc. Cr. Case No. 3137 of 1997) decided on 27-11-98, but the department has not handed over copy of the said report to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that when the application was made about the demand of bribe and such document if in writing amounts to first information report and the subsequent document after alleged trap is merely a statement made by the complainant to the Police Officer during the course of investigation u/s 162, Cr. P.C. and is inadmissible in evidence. Since the petitioner was not assigned any duty at the relevant period to issue conductors'' licence, the question of demanding money for issuing such a licence does not arise. There was absolutely no motive for complainant to give bribe to the petitioner. Further complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma is a resident of Morena and in the normal course, he would expect that he would file an application for issuance of a licence before the R.T.O. Morena. The very fact that he chose to file an application at Gwalior smacks of conspiracy. The recovery of the notes is not said to be from the person of the petitioner because it is admitted that at the time of transaction took place 5-6 persons were present in the room. In order to show as to how the petitioner was falsely involved, affidavits of Surat Ram Baghel, Akbar Ali, Abbas Beg Mirja, Moti Lal Dhuvkariya, Ashok Chawla, Kailash Savita, Girdhari Lal and Dr. Dhirendra Singh Chandel (Annex. P/3 to P 10) mostly connected with the transport business have been filed.

Challenging the application, the reply filed on behalf of respondent-State is that after receiving an application on 13-8-98 from complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma, a trap was arranged against the petitioner and the petitioner received bribe from the complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma and bribe money recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner''s hands were washed by sodium carbonate solution and the colour of solution turned into pink colour which was sent to the FSL Sagar. Report received that phenolphthalein powder was present in the solution. This fact is sufficient to establish that as per demand of the petitioner, bribe money was accepted by him. The R.T.O. Gwalior vide his letter dated 25-9-98 (Annexs. R/2 & R/3) has intimated that petitioner was assigned the working of issuing of conductors'' licence. Complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma and Ashok Kumar Sharma submitted before the petitioner applications on 17-8-98 (Annexs. R/3 & R/4) for issuance of conductors'' licence. The petitioner himself ordered for issuing the conductors'' licence on these applications.

With regard to the controversy that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned on the complaint dated 13-8-98, It has been contended for the State that Lokayukt Department has adopted a procedure that before registering the case, a secret and confidential verification is being done in relation to the demand of bribe by the respondents without disclosing the name of briber and when after secret verification, it is found that there is a demand of bribe, then only case is registered so that the false person may not be involved. In view of this, the name of the petitioner was kept confidential and was not disclosed in the application dated 13-8-98.

The learned Senior Advocate, Shri J. P. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the law does not envisage two F.I.Rs for the same offence as done in the present case. He has cited Vinond Walia v. State (CBI) Chandigarh (1998) 1 Cur Cri R 297 : 1997 Cri LJ 4501 (Punj & Hry); Jamuna Chaudhary and Others Vs. State of Bihar, ; State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, ; G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration), ; Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104; State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, and Sunil Kumar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in support of his arguments. After going through these citations with utmost regard, I am of the considered opinion that these rulings have no relevance to the point at issue. At this stage, the submission of the prosecution cannot be doubted that the name of the petitioner was deliberately withheld from the earlier application meant for preliminary enquiry in view to maintain secrecy.

The learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the first application of the complainant dated 13-8-98 in which the name of the petitioner was not disclosed in view of secrecy to be maintained at that stage, cannot be treated as an FIR u/s 154, Cr. P.C. Further that was the stage to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation so that innocent person may not be harassed or unnecessarily humiliated. The offence is completed only when the bribe money is accepted by the public servant and it is only after completion of this stage of the offence, the question of lodging an FIR will arise. In a similar case of M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, where the appellant filed a petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. before the Karnataka High Court seeking quashment of the second FIR on the ground that in view of the result of the earlier investigation the inclusion of the same check period in the second FIR was not proper. It was held that there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act to sustain the appellant''s contention that the present FIR itself is bad in law. There is no provision in the Cr. P.C. which debars the filing of an FIR and investigating into the alleged offences merely because for an earlier period, there was an FIR which was duly investigated into and culminated in a form of report.

The second contention of the learned senior counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was not assigned the work of issuing licence is also belied by the documents produced by defence as well as by the petitioner himself. From letter dated 11-3-99 of R.T.O., Gwalior (R2A), it is clear that the petitioner was also assigned the work of issuing conductors'' licences. The learned counsel of the petitioner has assailed the department instructions (Annex. R/5) regarding procedures to be adopted in corruption cases because these instructions are with regard to tape recording of the conversation between complainant and the official demanding bribe. The prosecution has produced such recording (Annex. X) but there is no recording as to demand of any bribe. I am of the considered opinion that in these instructions the department of Special Police Establishment has clearly Lald down the norms to make summary enquiry into the truth of the allegations before arranging of raid or lodging formal FIR. In so doing there is nothing violative of any departmental norms or any fundamental rights. It will not be out of place to mention here that the culture of corruption is so deep rooted in the soil of the land that different stratagies, methods or measures need to be adopted to eliminate corrupt practices in different circumstances and different types of cases.

The learned Govt. Advocate, Shri K. B. Chaturvedi, appearing for the State, has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in Sarup Chand Vs. State of Punjab, , Radhey Shyam Khemka and Another Vs. State of Bihar, ; State of M.P. Vs. Harsh Gupta, ; State of M. P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena 1996) 11 SCC 439; State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and others, and C.K. Damodaran Nair Vs. Govt of India, and argued that since the challan has already been filed before the Trial Court, the High court has no jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C. at this stage for quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of mala fide or animus of complainant or prosecution because on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the raid conducted against the petitioner, a prima facie case is made out against him. I am of the considered opinion that since the challan has already been filed against petitioner, he has further right to urge for his discharge if no prima facie case is made out against him, The High court cannot hold a pararrel trial in exercise of power u/s 482. Cr. P.C. Launching of prosecution cannot be thwarted merely on the basis of certain documents showing some departmental enmity with the petitioner.

The High Court cannot judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made against the petitioner at this stage. The learned Govt. Advocate has, therefore, rightly pointed out that the powers to quash proceedings u/s 482, Cr., P.C. should be sparingly exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court fails and is hereby rejected.