[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ganesh Jankiram Kothalkar vs State Of Mah., Thr. Anti Corruption ... on 30 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1722-DB

                                            1              3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt




                       [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 729 OF 2019

                       Ganesh Jankiram Kothalkar,
                       Aged about 53 years, Occ. Service,
                       R/o. Near Shri Ram Vidyalaya, Old
                       Khetan Nagar, Kaulkhed,
                       Akola-444004.                      APPLICANT

                        Versus
                  1. State of Maharashtra,
                     Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
                     P.S. Akola, District Akola.

                  2. Rajesh Ramdasji Kambe,
                     Aged about Adult, Occ. Dentist,
                     R/o. Main Road in front of HDFC
                     Bank, Murtizapur City,
                     District Akola.                 NON-APPLICANTS

                -----------------------------------------------
                Mr. O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for the Applicant through V.C.
                Mr. N.H. Joshi, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
                Mr. N.G. Tikar, Advocate h/f Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for the
                Non-applicant No.2.
                -----------------------------------------------


                                  CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

                                  DATED    : 30th JANUARY, 2026.
                 ORAL JUDGMENT :-

                               2                  3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt




1.         Heard.

2. ADMIT. Heard finally by the consent of learned

Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The present Application is preferred by the

Applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with

Crime No.29/2018 registered with Police Station Murtizapur

City, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 7,

12, 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C.

Act").

4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal

of the present Application are as under:-

On 29.01.2018 the Complainant/Non-applicant

No.2 lodged the report with the Anti Corruption Bureau alleging

that his son was arraigned as an accused in connection with

crime registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code

and was arrested and was taken into Police Custody Remand.

The accused was the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 1/2018

registered by Murtizapur City Police Station for offence 3 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and

assured the Complainant that, during the Police custody no

trouble would be given to his son and whatever facilities he can

provide, he will provide the same if the Complainant pays the

amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. As the Complainant was not inclined

to pay the said amount he approached the Anti Corruption

Bureau and lodged the complaint. Thereafter, to verify the

genuineness of the allegations levelled by the Complainant, the

pre-trap panchnama was laid and thereafter verification

panchnama was also drawn. During verification panchnama the

voice recorder was kept with the Complainant and he was asked

to communicate with the present Applicant as well as one other

Police Officer Gaikwad. It revealed from the said

communication that, the present Applicant has demanded the

amount for providing the facilities, and therefore, after

completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, who

submitted that as far as the present Applicant is concerned, he

has no concern with the said demand. He submitted that, the

verification panchnama nowhere reveals that there was a 4 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

demand by the present Applicant and in pursuance to the said

demand he has accepted the said amount and he was not the

Investigating Officer also in the said crime. He further submitted

that, the entire communication between the present Applicant

and the Complainant nowhere shows that there was any

demand of money by the present Applicant to provide any

facility to the son of the Non-applicant No.2, and therefore, no

prima facie case is made out against the present Applicant. In

view of that, it is a fit case wherein by exercising the power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the

Non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed for the same and invited

my attention towards the verification panchnama and especially

the communication between the Non-applicant No.2 and the

present Applicant disclosed the demand at the hands of the

present Applicant. Learned APP also pointed out the summary

of the charge-sheet, wherein the analysis received by way of

spectrographic test and submitted that the voice sample of the

present Applicant matches with the sample taken during the

investigation. In view of that, they submitted that prima facie 5 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

case is made out against the present Applicant to constitute the

offence punishable under Sections 8 and 10 of the P.C. Act.

7. I have given considerable thought to the

submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant and

learned APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.

8. The law relating to quashing of the FIR was

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

Harayana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , 1992 Supp.(1) SCC

335, wherein the principles have been laid down which are

required to be considered while considering the application for

quashing of the FIR, which read as under:

"(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 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 6 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

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

9. 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, MANU/SC/00/2025, which reads 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 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 7 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

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, 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 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 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 8 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

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

10. Thus, the present Application has to be decided as

per parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

11. In the present case, the contents in the FIR clearly

shows the demand at the hands of the present Applicant. The

Applicant is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section

7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which reads as under:

"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.--Any public servant who,-- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

9 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

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

shows the demand and attempt to obtain from the complainant

an undue advantage by misusing the official position by the

public servant.

13. Here in the present case though the Applicant is not

an Investigating Officer but from the communication it reveals

that he had demanded the amount for the other Investigating

Officer and to provide the facilities to the accused.

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 present Applicant was recorded, which is

reproduced in the verification panchanama.

15. The communication specifically shows that there

was a communication between the present Applicant and the

Complainant on account of the payment of money to provide 10 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

the facilities to the son of the Complainant who was an accused

in another crime. Admittedly, the voice sample of the

Complainant and the Non-applicant No.2 are obtained and

forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report of the

same is also received.

16. The Spectrographic Analysis Report Test which runs

as under:

"The auditory analysis of the recorded questioned voice exhibits of speaker marked Ex.1/1, Ex-2/1 and the specimen voice exhibit of speaker marked Ex-6/2 and subsequent spectrographic analysis revealed that, the questioned voice exhibits of speaker marked Ex-1/1, Ex- 2/1 matches with the specimen voice exhibit of speaker marked Ex-6/2 (said to Mr. Ganesh Janakiram Kothalkar)."

17. Thus, the above report specifically shows that, the

samples which are obtained and the voice which was recorded

in the voice recorder matches and reveals from the

spectrographic analysis.

18. It is submitted that, the allegations in the FIR are

false and there is no demand from the present Applicant but at

this stage this Court cannot go into the truthfulness or otherwise

the allegations made in the complaint. This Court would not be 11 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

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 Cr.P.C. 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.

19. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR,

even if taken at their face value, supported by the verification

panchanama, disclosed the commission of offence and make out

a case against the present Applicant.

20. Here 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 governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of one's life.

12 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

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 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, 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 13 3.APL.729-2019.JUDGMENT.odt

the grain from the chaff. We leave the discussion here with the fervent hope of better times in future".

21. In the light of the above observations, in the present

case, the allegations, made in the FIR and the material collected

by the prosecution sufficient to constitute the offence

punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and therefore, prima

facie case is made out against the present Applicant.

22. For the reasons stated above, I have no option but to

reject the Application, and therefore, the Application is rejected

and disposed of accordingly.

23. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the

observations made while deciding this Application which is only

for the purpose of quashing of the FIR.

24. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of