The Jharkhand High Court the petition of the Circle Inspector seeking quashing of the order passed by the trial judge which rejected his discharge petition and held that the scope of judicial interference by the High Court was a limited one and the court at this stage cannot hold a mini-trial and the accused cannot avoid trial if there are strong grounds of suspicion.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, posted as Circle Inspector was accused of demanding illegal gratification for favoring the complainant. The petitioner then filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order passed by the Special Judge under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that no work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner when the complaint was made. It was further argued that a false case was foisted against the petitioner by the investigating officer for the prospects of promotion.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state opposed the prayer made by the appellant on the ground of maintainability of the petition and was further argued that proper remedy against rejection of the discharge petition is amenable to revisional petition and is not in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that there was no dispute regarding the issue of maintainability as Section 482 and Section 397 operate in two different fields and Section 482 preserves and confers a separate and independent power on High Court to pass order ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of Court and gives an overriding effect to the inherent power of the Court over its revisional power.
The court further stated that the allegation in the complaint was corroborated by the verification report and the petitioner was caught red-handed with bribe money and there are materials on record on which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted.
It was further observed that the scope of judicial interference by the High Court was a limited one and the court at this stage cannot hold a mini-trial and the accused cannot avoid trial if there are strong grounds of suspicion. The court referred to the judgement in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra which held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection to state that the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of the allegations made in the complaint.
The court concluded that there was material to make out a prima facie case of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money in the present case and the merit of defence plea cannot be per se a ground for quashing.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition and concluded that there was no illegality in the impugned order.
Case Title: Dwivedi Kanak Bhushan @ Diwedi Kanak Bhushan vs. The State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1559 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Dhanajay Kumar Dubey
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
