Madras High Court
Rajiv Gandhi vs The State Rep. By on 27 September, 2021
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 27.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
[Video Conferencing]
Rajiv Gandhi ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State rep. By
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Ariyalur District.
Crime No.02/2020
2.P.Dharmalingam ... Respondents
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records in Crime No.02/2020 on the file of the 1st respondent
and with Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and quash in so
far as the petitioner is concerned the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Padmanaban
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
ORDER
(1) The present petition has been filed taking advantage of Section 482
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.2/2020 registered by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Vigilance and Anti Corruption
in Ariyalur District, which FIR had been registered under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, on a complaint
given by one Dharmalingam, who alleged that there was a demand of
Rs.10,000/- for grant of electricity service connection for the bore
well in his lands. The complaint was given on 08.02.2020 and after
receiving the complaint, taking note that it disclosed a cognizable
offence, a FIR had been registered by the 1st respondent herein, as
stated above.
(2) I am informed that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, a trap
was also laid pursuant to the demand of illegal gratification and the
trap was also successful and money had also been recovered during
the course of trap operation.
(3) Heard Mr.A.Padmanaban, learned counsel for the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st
respondent.
(4) The main focus of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner herein is A1 and working as the
Assistant Engineer, Suthamalai Division, TANGEDCO in Ariyalur
District. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/2nd respondent
herein, had applied online for obtaining a service connection for his
bore well and had also made necessary payments through online.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant met the petitioner
herein/A1 seeking as to the procedure to be followed for getting
necessary service connection and also the probable time schedule and
the petitioner herein/A1 stated that in accordance with the seniority,
service connections would be given. Thereafter, there had been
further meeting between the two of them and at one point, the
petitioner herein/A1 had directed the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant to meet A2 who was the Foreman in the particular place
and stated that necessary materials can be collected from the
Foreman. They were also collected and work commenced. Work
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
continued for three days and thereafter, it stopped.
(5) On 07.02.2020, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had, after
making contact with the petitioner herein/A1, gone over to the office
and met the petitioner herein/A1 who directed the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant to A2. A2 stated that for further
continuance of the work and to complete the grant of service
connection, he must pay a sum of Rs.5000 for and behalf of A1, a
sum of Rs.1,000/- for and behalf of himself/A2 and an additional
amount of Rs.4,000/- towards transport expenses. Agitated by such a
demand, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had lodged a
complaint which led to the registration of FIR in Crime No.2/2020 on
08.02.2020.
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the
petitioner/A1 had not directly demanded the amount and had also not
received the amount and there was no recovery from the petitioner
herein/A1. The learned counsel, therefore stated that implicating the
petitioner herein/A1 in the entire scheme of things may not be proper
and therefore, sought quashing of FIR insofar as the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
herein/A1 is concerned.
(7) In this connection, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2004
SCC [Cri.] 1805 [State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and
another], wherein at paragraph No.12, it had been held as follows:-
''12. ........ we find that the FIR did not disclose
commission of an offence without anything being added
or subtracted from the recitals therein. Though the FIR
is not intended to be an encyclopaedia of the
background scenario, yet even skeletal features must
disclose the commission of an offence. The position is
not so in these cases.......''
(8) The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in
1992 SCC [Cri.] 426 [State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal
and Others] wherein at paragraph No.85, the Apex Court had the
occasion to observe as follows:-
85. Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Court
while considering the inherent powers of the High
Court in quashing the first information report under
Section 561-A of the old Code (corresponding to
Section 482 of the new Code) in R.P. Kapur v. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
Punjab [(1960) 3 SCR 388, 396 : AIR 1960 SC 866 :
1960 Cri LJ 1239] at page 393 made the following
observation:
“Cases may also arise where the allegations in
the first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the
offence alleged; in such cases no question of
appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter
merely of looking at the complaint or the first
information report to decide whether the
offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such
cases it would be legitimate for the High Court
to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to
allow the process of the criminal court to be
issued against the accused person.”
(9) Taking advantage of the facts and the law as stated above,
Mr.A.Padmanaban, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this
Court should interfere with the further progress of the FIR and quash
the same insofar as the present petitioner / A1 is concerned.
(10) Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the 1st respondent, on the other hand, pointed out the FIR wherein the
2nd respondent/defacto complainant had very specifically stated that
on 06.02.2020, only half of the work had been completed and on that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
particular date, nobody turned up for the work and therefore, on
07.02.2020, at around 11.30 a.m., the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant had contacted the petitioner herein/A1 through cell
number, which cell numbers are also given in the FIR and asked as to
why nobody has come to work. Then, the petitioner herein/A1
replied that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant must come over to
the office. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant went over to the
office at around 1.00 p.m., and the petitioner herein/A1 specifically
stated that he must meet A2, the Foreman, who would give necessary
instructions. When the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant went and
met A2/Foreman, he stated that if the work for grant of service
connection is to continue, then the 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant must pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the Assistant Engineer /
A1 / petitioner herein ; Rs.1,000/- for himself/A2 and Rs.4,000/- for
transportation charges, totalling Rs.10,000/-. Pointing out this
particular statement in the FIR, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
stated that there has been a demand on behalf of A1 and both A1 and
A2 have been working together and therefore, the learned Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
Public Prosecutor stated that the FIR should be investigated and as a
matter of fact, also stated that pursuant to investigation, the Final
Report had been practically finalised and would be filed before the
competent Court within a few days.
(11) I have carefully considered the arguments put forth by the learned
counsels on either side.
(12) The question of quashing the FIR had come into consideration by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the first instance in State of
Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992
SCC [Crl.] 426, wherein at paragraph No.102, the Apex Court had
given various stipulations, which will have to be examined if an FIR
will have to be quashed. The said stipulations are quoted below:-
''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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
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.
(13) The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that if allegations are taken at
their face value and if they are accepted in their entirety, then they
should make out cognizable offence. It is also stated that if the
allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, then, the Court can
interfere with the them. It is also stated that if they do not disclose
commission of any offence and do not make out any case against the
accused, then the Court can interfere with the further progress of FIR.
In effect, the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India were
that a reading of the FIR should not even disclose commission of any
offence, much less a cognizable offence for the Court to interfere and
quash the same.
(14) In the present case, the very fact that the 2nd respondent herein/defacto
complainant had stated in the complaint that the petitioner herein/A1
had directed him to meet A2, itself shows that the petitioner/A1 was
in the knowledge that A2 would be raising a demand and that the 2 nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
respondent herein/defacto complainant should comply with the said
demand. There was no reason for the 2nd respondent herein/defacto
complainant to meet A2 otherwise. He met A2 only because he was
directed by the present petitioner/A1 to meet A2. It must also be kept
in mind that the work had commenced and work had stopped half
way. This put the 2nd respondent herein/defacto complainant in a
very piquant situation. He neither had the service connection nor the
work which had commenced had ended, nor was there was any
guarantee that the work would continue further and come to a
conclusion. Further, according to the demands raised by the accused,
the work would be done only if the demand amount is paid by the 2nd
respondent herein/defacto complainant. Therefore, there was a
demand, no doubt by A2, but also specifically for A1/petitioner
herein. The collusion between the petitioner herein/A1 and A2 stands
out by the very fact that the 2nd respondent herein/defacto
complainant had been directed to meet A2 and then, immediately
when the demand was raised by A2.
(15) Therefore, I would hold that a cognizable offence has been made out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
on the face of a reading of the FIR.
(16) In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others] reported in 2021 SCC Online 315, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had again stated that the Court
should not thwart any investigation into cognizable offences at the
initial stage. It had also been stated that the power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly with circumspection. The Court cannot
also embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations and the criminal proceedings should not
be scuttled at the initial stage. It had been very specifically stated that
quashing of a FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary
rule.
(17) Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/A1 is concerned, it is seen that even in the cited
paragraphs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that a FIR can be
interfered with only if it does not disclose any commission of any
offence without anything being added or subtracted. From the
recitals of the instant FIR, it is seen that there was a specific direction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
given by the petitioner herein/A1 to the 2nd respondent herein/defacto
complainant to meet A2 who would give necessary instructions and
those instructions were to pay amount as bribe and therefore, the
judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported
in 2004 SCC [Cri.] 1805 [cited supra], actually works out to the
petitioner's disadvantage.
(18) Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner reported in 1992 SCC [Cri.] 426 [cited supra] at paragraph
No.85 is concerned, once again the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated
that the allegations in the information if taken at their face value,
should not constitute any offences alleged. Demand of bribe is
certainly an offence. It is a cognizable offence. A public duty is
engrained upon every public servant and among them, is not to raise
any demand of bribe or to look out for avenues to seek illegal
gratification.
(19) In view of these facts and in accordance with law as enunciated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I would dismiss the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
Criminal Original Petition. A direction is given to the 1st respondent
police to proceed further with the investigation and file the Final
Report at the earliest.
(20) With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed.
27.09.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Ariyalur District.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
Crl.OP.No.17759/2021
27.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
