[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Ankit Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24538
1 WP-10168-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10168 of 2026
DR ANKIT TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This petition is filed on behalf of petitioner Dr. Ankit Tripathi S/o Shri
Ram Narayan Tripathi, Incharge Block Medical Officer Baldeogarh Block,
district Tikamgarh, challenging the FIR Ex.P/2, registering Casde Crime
No.199/2025, by the Special Police Establishment under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, showing cause of
action to be 26.08.2025 to 29.08.2025.
Allegation is that the complainant runs an Aadhar Card Preparation
Center in the campus of Community Health Center, Khargapur. Allegation
is that petitioner Dr. Ankit Tripathi, demanded bribe for grant of permission
to continue the Aadhar Card Preparation Center within the campus of
Community Health Center, Khargapur. Complaint was made. Recording was
made and according to Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24538
2 WP-10168-2026
respondent, petitioner is consistently avoiding giving his voice sample.
Prayer is made to quash the FIR in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of Gujrat and
another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 273].
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Section 7(a) as stands amended vide Act No.16 of 2018 w.e.f.
26.07.2018, provides that :-
"7(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."
Similarly, clause (b) of Section 7, provides that :-
"7(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."
Explanation 1, below Section 7, provides that :-
"Explanation 1 - 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24538
3 WP-10168-2026
been improper."
Illustration given below Explanation-1 is as under :-
"Illustration - 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."
Shri Raunak Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has information from informal channels that Lok Ayukt is proposing to close
the case.
This submission is vehemently denied by Shri Abhinav Shrivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent.
Shri Raunak Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has also
questioned the locus and delay.
As far as the locus is concerned, Explanation (2), below Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, makes a specific mention that it shall be
immaterial whether such person being a public servant, obtains or accepts or
attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.
Therefore, even if the said Center is not directly in the name of the
complainant, but still the complainant will have locus.
As far as delay is concerned, delay of one month, as is apparent from
the FIR Ex.P/2, cannot be said to be so fatal so to defeat the case or
collection of the evidence. Delay in lodging of the FIR can only be fatal
when it becomes impossible for the prosecution to collect evidence and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24538
4 WP-10168-2026
presented in the form of a comprehensive data before the trial Court for
prosecution. Therefore, these two grounds also do not find favour with us.
In fact, in case of Mubarak Ali Vs. State (AIR 1958 MP 157) , it is
held that " a mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to the
commission of this offence; when tested then in humble opinion of this
Division Bench, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the one
which was presented before the Apex Court in Dileepbhai Nanubhai
Sanghani's case (supra) and, therefore, that judgment is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the amended
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 2018, in view of the
Explanation- 1 and Illustration, whereas matter before Hon'ble Supreme
Court is of the year 2008. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in view of
the aforesaid quoted illustration, no indulgence is called for to quash the FIR
at this stage.
In above terms, petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
