Bombay High Court
Navnath S/O Balaji Shevale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 April, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
cr-apln5317-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5317 OF 2015
1. Navnath s/o Balaji Shevale
Aged 25 years,Occu: Service,
R/o Anandwadi, Tq. Shirur
Anantpal
District: latur
2. Bapurao s/o Dhondiba Mane ... Applicants
Age 30 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o Shelgaon Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Station
Officer, Chakur Police Station,
Taluka Chakur, Dist. Latur
2. Pankaj s/o Pralhad Bhalerao ... Respondents
Age 36 yeas, Occu: Police
Inspector,
Anti Corruption Bureau Latur
(Deleted as per order dated
18.11.2015)
Mr. M. S.Deshmukh, Advocate h/for Mr. U. L. Momale,
and Mr. P. A. Bharat, Advocates for the applicants,
Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29th March, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON 13th April, 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per K. L. Wadane, J.)
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
cr-apln5317-15.odt
heard finally by consent of learned counsel for
respective parties.
2. Present application is filed by original accused
Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to quash and set aside the First
Information Report No. 3042/2015 registered at Chakur
Police Station, Taluka Chakur, Dist. Latur on
01.09.2015, for the offence punishable under sections 7
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.
We have heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel
appearing for the applicants, Mr. Nerlikar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1 State.
4. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:
i. Respondent No.2 (since deleted) lodged a
complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau at Latur
stating that original complainant namely Biban
Sarvar Shaikh lodged a complaint alleging that his
father was allotted the work of soling of road from
village Mandurki to its graveyard and the concerned
Sectional Civil Engineer, Panchayat Samiti, Chakur
namely Mr. Kamble had taken measurement of the work
and bill of the work was submitted to the concerned
cr-apln5317-15.odt
authority of the State Government.
ii. On 12.08.2015, original complainant Mr.
Shaikh had been to the office of applicant No.1 at
Latur and inquired about the bill of his father, on
which, applicant no.1 informed that the bill and the
measurement book was not submitted to the Panchayat
Samiti, Chakur and if it is to be submitted, then the
original complainant has to pay him Rs.15,000/-
otherwise, he will not submit the bill.
iii. Respondent No.2 (since deleted) has called two
panchas and after following as usual procedure, he
laid a trap. Accordingly, original complainant and
pancha witnesses, members of the raiding party were
proceeded towards the office of applicant No.1.
Thereafter, respondent No.2(since deleted) laid a
trap against the applicants. However, all the times,
the trap was unsuccessful for the reasons stated in
the complaint.
5. During the course of argument, Mr. Deshmukh,
learned counsel appearing for the applicants has
stated that taking into consideration all the contents
of the complaint, no cognizable offence is disclosed
against the applicants, therefore, the further
cr-apln5317-15.odt
proceeding pursuant to the registration of crime is
meaningless.
6. On perusal of the record, it appears that
respondent No.2 (since deleted) had laid traps for four
times, however, for sometimes, the applicants were not
present at the office of applicant No.1 and on one
occasion, applicant No.1 was found in the office,
however, immediately, he came out from the office and
went with one unknown person on the motorcycle. So
taking into consideration the entire allegations in the
first information report, we don't think that there is
material to show that either applicant No.1 or applicant
no.2, on behalf of applicant no.1, has demanded the
bribe as alleged by the original complainant.
7. Learned APP has produced papers of investigation.
8. On security of papers of investigation, it
appears that the prosecution has now mainly relied upon
the conversations between original complainant Biban
Shaikh and applicant Nos. 1 and 2 recorded on digital
voice recorder. Transcript of it is produced on record.
We have carefully gone through the transcript of the
conversations, from which, it reveals that there is
nothing on record to show that applicant no.1 has
cr-apln5317-15.odt
demanded the bribe for submitting measurement book
alongwith bill to the Panchayat samiti. There is no
remote reference in the conversation that the applicant
no.1 has demanded or applicant No.2, on behalf of
applicant No.1, has demanded amount for doing the said
work. In such circumstances, even the entire material
placed before us is taken to be true, then also no
cognizable offence is disclosed. Therefore, based upon
such material, further proceeding against the applicants
is meaningless, rather it is an abuse of process.
9. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
applicants has produced and relied upon the following
authorities:
(1) Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana, (2010)4 Supreme
Court Cases 450,
(2) K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3
Supreme Court Cases 721,
(3) Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi, (2014) 13 Supreme
Court Cases 143,
(4) Krishnan Chander Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 2016
SUPREME COURT 298
(5) M.K.Harshan VS. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 Supreme
Court Cases 720,
cr-apln5317-15.odt
10. We have gone through the facts and observations
of the above authorities. The observations of the
above authorities are not applicable to the facts of
the present case simply because the observations of the
above authorities are in regards with the conclusion of
the trial and such observations cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the present case because,
herein, the present proceeding is at very initial stage
and we are examining whether the material placed before
us is sufficient to constitute cognizable offence or
not, that too even prima facie.
11. In relation to the above, it is material to note
that it is well settled principle of law that the High
Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in
particular, a first information report unless the
allegations contained therein, even if given face value
and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no
cognizable offence. For the said purpose, except in very
exceptional circumstances, powers to quash and set aside
criminal proceedings has to be exercised. While doing
so, the documents relied and produced by the defence
are not to be looked into. If the allegations made in
cr-apln5317-15.odt
the first information disclose commission of offence,
the Courts would not go beyond the same and pass order
in favour of the accused.
12. Here, in the present case, taking into
consideration the face value of the documents /material
produced on record, no offence is made out even prima
facie. In such circumstances, further criminal
proceeding against the applicants is meaningless.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Information
Report No. 3042/2015 registered at Chakur Police
Station, Taluka Chakur, Dist. Latur on 01.09.2015
against the applicants has to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly the application is allowed.
13. The Information Report No. 3042/2015 registered
at Chakur Police Station, Taluka Chakur, Dist. Latur on
01.09.2015 against the applicants for the offence
punishable under sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
( K. L. WADANE, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
JPC
