[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pratik S/O Diwakar Channawar vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Aheri Dist. ... on 15 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:14239-DB




              Judgment

                                                               516 apl159.24

                                            1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.159 OF 2024

              Pratik s/o Diwakar Channawar,
              aged 33 years, occupation : Government
              Servant, r/o at post Nandgaon,
              tahsil Mul, district Chandrapur.   ..... Applicant.

                                    :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra, through
              Police Station Officer, Police
              Station Aheri, district Gadchiroli.

              2. Soil Ajijkhan Pathan, aged
              major, occupation: Tendupatta
              Contractor, r/o post Bori, taluka
              Aheri, district Gadchiroli.       ..... Non-applicants.

              Shri N.S.Khubalkar, Counsel for the Applicant.
              Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for NA No.1/State.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
                      NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.

              CLOSED ON : 21/11/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 15/12/2025

              JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

.....2/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

1. Heard learned counsel Shri N.S.Khubalkar for

the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Shri M.J.Khan for the State. Admit. Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present application is preferred by the

applicant under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of

FIR in connection with Crime No.275/2023 dated

26.8.2023 registered under Sections 7 and 12 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) with

Aheri Police Station, district Gadchiroli.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the

application are as under:

The applicant is serving as Block Development

Officer and at the relevant time, is posted at Aheri in

Gadchiroli district and was functioning as Assistant Block

Development Officer. The crime is registered against him

.....3/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

on the basis of a report lodged by Sohel Ajijkhan Pathan

alleging that he is doing work of taking contract of

collection and transportation and sell of "Tendupatta" in

Grampanchayat of Umanur, Govindgaon, Petha. In

connection with Govindgaon, pertaining to 41 Unit, he has

already paid labour charges and royalty. However, despite

of paying the said charges, "No Objection Certificate" has

not been issued by the concerned authority. When he

enquired, it was informed to him that the applicant

working as the Block Development Officer is the

competent authority who has authority to issue "No

Objection Certificate" for obtaining further "Transit-Pass"

from the Forest Department. Therefore, the complainant

approached the concerned office and co-accused Sanjeev

Kothari demanded amount Rs.1,30,000/- for the same.

Out of the amount, the complainant paid amount

Rs.50,000/- to said Sanjay Kothari. As the complainant

.....4/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

was not ready to pay rest of the amount, he approached

the Office of the Anti Corruption Bureau at Gadchiroli for

lodging the report.

4. After lodging the report, officials of the Anti

Corruption Bureau verified the fact of the demand and

thereby led a trap and co-accused Sanjeev Kothari was

found accepting the said amount. On the basis of the said

report, the police registered the crime and during

investigation, required panchanamas are prepared by the

investigating agency.

5. After registration of the crime, the applicant

approached this court on the ground that even accepting

the allegations as it is, no offence is made out against the

applicant as there was no demand by the applicant. The

communication nowhere reveals that it was the applicant,

who has demanded the gratification amount and co-

accused has accepted the same. Thus, neither the offence .....5/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

under Section 7 nor under Section 12 of the PC Act is

made out. In view of that, the FIR against the applicant

deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken us

through the entire investigation papers and the

communication which is recorded by the officials of the

Anti Corruption Bureau to ascertain genuineness of the

demand and submitted that none of communications

shows that there was demand at the hands of the

applicant. Thus, considering no prima facie case is made

out against the applicant, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State opposed the said contentions and invited our

attention to communication and submitted that the

communication recorded during the verification

panchanama specifically states that it was the applicant

who has demanded the amount through the other co-

.....6/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

accused. The communication specifically discloses that

the demand was made on the say of the applicant. He

invited our attention to verification panchanama wherein

communication between the applicant and the

complainant was recorded. He submitted that nature of

the communication itself shows that it was the applicant,

who through other co-accused, demanded the said

amount. Therefore, the said act is covered under Sections

7 and 12 of the PC Act.

8. We have given considerable thought to the

submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

9. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was

explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in

1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 wherein principles

have been laid down which are required to be .....7/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

considered while considering applications for quashing

of the FIRs, which read as under:

"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) 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

.....8/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the

.....9/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) 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".

10. The law relating to quashing of the FIR was

explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

B.N.John vs. State of UP, reported in

MANU/SC/00/2025, as under:

"As far as quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards to the principles to be applied by

.....10/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

.....11/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

.....12/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

           (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 make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd

.....13/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(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

.....14/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. Thus, the present application has to be

decided as per parameters laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court.

12. In the present case, the contents in the FIR

clearly show the demand and attempt to obtain from the

complainant an undue advantage by misusing the

official position by the public servant.

13. Explanation-1, given under Section 7 of the

PC Act states that for the purpose of this section, the

obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an

undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if

the performance of a public duty by public servant, is

not or has not been improper.

.....15/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

The illustration given thereunder states that, a

public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an

amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine

ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence

under this section.

14. To ascertain genuineness of the allegations,

the officers of the bureau called panchas and in presence

of panchas, the voice recorder was switched on and the

complainant was asked to communicate by approaching

the accused. The communication between the

complainant and the co-accused as well as the

communication between the complainant and the

applicant was recorded, which is reproduced in the

verification panchanama.

15. The communication specifically shows that

there was a demand by the applicant to the complainant

and shown his willingness to accept the amount through .....16/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

another person. Admittedly, voice samples of the

applicant and the complainant are obtained and

forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report

of the same is awaited.

16. It was submitted that the allegations in the

FIR are false. At this stage, this court cannot go into

truthfulness or otherwise the allegations made in the

complaint. This court would not be justified in

embarking upon and enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the

FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the

proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. However,

the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face

value, must disclose the commission of the offence and

make out a case against the accused.

17. In the present case, the allegations made in

the FIR, even if taken at their face value, supported by .....17/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

the verification panchanama, disclose the commission of

offence and make out a case against the applicant.

18. It would be apt to refer the observations of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Chhattisgarh

vs. Aman Kumar Singh and ors, reported in the 2023

SCC OnLine SC 198, which are reproduced as under:

"We preface our discussion, leading to the answers to the above two questions, taking note of a dangerous and disquieting trend that obviously disturbs us without end. Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly 'corruption'. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now limited to the spheres of activities of

.....18/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of one's life. Indeed, it is a matter of disgrace for the entire community that not only on the one hand is there a steady decline in steadfastly pursuing the lofty ideals which the founding fathers of our Constitution had in mind, degradation of moral values in society is rapidly on the rise on the other. Not much debate is required to trace the root of corruption. 'Greed', regarded in Hinduism as one of the seven sins, has been overpowering in its impact. In fact, unsatiated greed for wealth has facilitated corruption to develop like cancer. If the corrupt succeed in duping the law enforcers, their success erodes even the fear of getting caught. They tend to bask under a hubris that rules and regulations are for humbler mortals and not them. To get caught, for them, is a sin. Little wonder, outbreak of scams is commonly noticed. What is more distressing is the investigations/inquiries that follow. More often than not, these are botched and

.....19/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

assume the proportion of bigger scams than the scams themselves. However, should this state of affairs be allowed to continue? Tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing them appropriately is the mandate of the P.C. Act. "We the people", with the adoption of our Constitution, had expected very high standards from people occupying positions of trust and responsibility in line with the Constitutional ethos and values. Regrettably, that has not been possible because, inter alia, a small section of individuals inducted in public service for 'serving the public' appear to have kept private interest above anything else and, in the process, amassed wealth not proportionate to their known sources of income at the cost of the nation. Although an appropriate legislation is in place to prevent the cancer of corruption from growing and developing, wherefor maximum punishment by way of imprisonment for ten years is stipulated, curbing it in adequate measure,

.....20/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

much less eradicating it, is not only elusive but unthinkable in present times. Since there exists no magic wand as in fairy tales, a swish of which could wipe out greed, the Constitutional Courts owe a duty to the people of the nation to show zero tolerance to corruption and come down heavily against the perpetrators of the crime while at the same time saving those innocent public servants, who unfortunately get entangled by men of dubious conduct acting from behind the screen with ulterior motives and/or to achieve vested interests. The task, no doubt, is onerous but every effort ought to be made to achieve it by sifting the grain from the chaff. We leave the discussion here with the fervent hope of better times in future".

19. In the light of the above observations, in the

present case, the allegations in the FIR and the material

collected by the prosecution show that the applicant has

demanded Rs.1,30,000/- which is substantiated by the

.....21/-

Judgment

516 apl159.24

verification panchanama. The alleged act of the

applicant covers under Sections 7 and 12 of the PC Act

and, therefore, prima facie case is made out against the

applicant.

20. For the reasons above, we have no option but