Om Prakash Srivastava vs State of Rajasthan

K.S. Rathore, J.—Additional Superintendent of Police. Anti-Corruption Bureau. Kota, on the basis of information furnished by the informant registered an F.I.R. No. 154/1998 u/s 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with 120-B, IPC.

This petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing F.I.R. No. 145/1998, vis-a-vis, the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations alleged against the petitioner is that the petitioner verified the award on the basis of the record supplied lo him by his superiors and as a result of that, it is stated that the amounl of award for the same land, for which, the amount of award was already paid to Shri Manna Lal, was paid doubly and the specific allegation against the petitioner if that

**Jh vks- ih- JhokLro us tkurs gq, fd iwoZ esa Hkqxrku gks pqdk gS] fQj Hkh Hkqxrku djus dh flQkfj''k dhA**

It is further given out that the computation of the amount of the award was done by the petitioner''s predecessor and petitioner never dealt with these proceedings and petitioner only verified the computation of the amount of the award on the basis of the official record, supplied to him by his superior officers and petitioner, vide his letter dated 14.8.2002, apprised this fact to the Secretary, Personnel Department, Govt. of Rajasthan.

Petitioner also represented before the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur about his innocence and the false implication and further stated in explicit words that the respondent never inquired about the matter with the petitioner, nor extended any opportunity to the petitioner to submit the documents in support of his innocence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that sanction of prosecution, so far as the petitioner is concerned is incorrect in the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove and the F.I.R. at face value is false and deserves to be quashed and set aside vis-a-vis the petitioner by this Court. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner is malicious malafide and with ulterior motive because the petitioner did not commit any offence and was not having any knowledge of the earlier award and subsequent payment and not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner existing on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1), wherein the Supreme Court has laid clown the categories of the case, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 or u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offence to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case falls in the category of No. 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 made out a case against the accused.

He also relied upon condition No. 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.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the contents of the writ petition as well as contents of the FIR and after careful examination of the ratio decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra) and also attested the present case in view of the conditions No. 3 and 7.

As it is not disputed as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that where the allegations made in the FIR 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. Herein the instant case prima facie the corruption department has able to make out the case against the petitioner.

Further 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 made out a case against the accused.

Herein the instant case they have placed sufficient evidence and in support of collected evidence the resolution of the offence is made out against him and the Anti Corruption Department has registered a case against the petitioner.

As in the condition No. 7 which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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 is concerned the petitioner has not raised any allegation against Anti Corruption Department and has also not impleaded as a malafide against the individual officer and also not impleaded any person as party form association. The writ petition does not survive since the petitioner utterly failed to prove the malafide allegations. Therefore, the tests as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. does not apply to the instant case.

On the face value of the FIR it is well established that the offence is made on the basis of evidence collected by the Anti Corruption Department against the petitioner. Therefore, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court does not want to interfere in FIR No. 154/98.

Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Same is herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.