Dharampal vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 05/2011 dated 31.1.2011, u/s 7, 8, 13, 49 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station S.V.B., Gurgaon (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from reading of the FIR no offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioner. In fact, the mutation was to be entered by the Patwari. Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held as under:-

As regards accused No. 2 merely because he was entrusted with some money to be passed on, to accused No. 1 it could not be held that he was guilty of any one of these offences unless it is established that he was a party to the arrangement and the arrangement arrived at was that the money would be handed over to accused No. 2 to be given over to accused No. 1. Apparently accused No. 2 was not expected to help the complainant The assurance to the complainant to settle the matter, according to the prosecution was given by accused No. 1 and according to the prosecution''s own case and the evidence of complainant Pandurang this arrangement was finally settled on 29.11.75 at the house of accused No. 1. Admittedly accused No. 2 was not there nor it is alleged that he had any knowledge about this settlement. The incident of 29.11.75 is said to be between accused No. 1 and Pandurang alone and the only evidence is that of Pandurang. Under these circumstances it could not be held that accused No. 2 accepted this amount for any purpose. At best as the complainant told him to pass this money on to accused No. 1 he accepted it but on that basis it could not be held that he was sharing the intention with accused No. 1 or was acting on his behalf.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the present case, prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-respondent No. 2 had met Jagdish Patwari for transfer of mutation of the land in his favour. Jagdish Patwari told the complainant that mutation relating to Court cases could only be ordered by the petitioner and he (Jagdish Patwari) was not competent to do so. Complainant met the petitioner. Petitioner raised a demand of Rs. 15,000/- for doing the needful. The deal was settled at Rs. 12,000/-. Petitioner told the complainant to hand over the said amount to Jagdish Patwari and complainant was also told that in case he failed to pay the full amount then the work would not be done. Thereafter, on the statement of the complainant, a raid was organized and Jagdish Patwari was caught red handed while accepting bribe.

In the present case, specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant in the FIR. As per the FIR, complainant had met the petitioner with regard to sanction of mutation in his favour. Petitioner had demanded bribe from the complainant and had told him to hand over the same to the Patwari. In these circumstances, it could not be said that criminal proceedings could not be proceeded against the petitioner. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner.

Hence, no ground to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold is made out. Dismissed.