Narendra Kumar Tanwar S/O Late ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 274 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 785/2019

Narendra Kumar Tanwar S/o Late Shri Balkishan Tanwar, Aged
About 54 Years, Ex-Financial Adviser Secondary Education Board
Of Raj. Ajmer R/o S-56 Geejgarh Vihar Hawa Sadak Bais
Godown Jaipur-302006.
                                                          ----Accused-Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.        The Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur Regional Office Life
          Nidhi-II Life Insurance Corporation Second Floor Bhawani
          Singh Road Jaipur Through Its Assistant Director Shri
          Vivek Shrivastava, 302005
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                      Order

13/01/2021

This criminal writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of

the FIR No. 196/2013 registered at Police Station Chowki Ajmer

P.S. Anti Corruption Bureau Jaipur, consequential charge-sheet

No.76/2014, criminal complaint No. 03/2016 pending before the

Special Sessions Judge, Jaipur (P.M.L.A.2002(Special Judge

Communal Riots Cases) and all subsequent proceedings.

So far as quashing of criminal complaint No.3/2016 under

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act of 2002") is concerned, learned counsel for

the petitioner fairly concedes that offence under the Act of 2002

being "stand alone offence", cannot be quashed on the ground

(2 of 3) [CRLW-785/2019]

that it is hit by the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

case of T.T. Antony Versus State of Kerala, 2001 Cr.L.R. [SC]

633.

In these circumstances, prayer in the writ petition to this

extent is dismissed as not pressed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the

respondent No.1 has lodged an FIR bearing No.99/2013 alleging

disproportionate assets wherein, after investigation, the

respondent filed charge-sheet No.132/13 dated 10.05.2013 under

Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988"). He submitted

that on the basis of same facts, the respondent No.1 lodged yet

another FIR bearing No.196/2013 dated 10.05.2013 wherein also

after investigation, charge-sheet No.76/2014 dated 27.03.2014

came to be filed under Section 13 (1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Act

of 1988 and Sections 409 and 120-B IPC. Learned counsel

contended that the subsequent FIR based on the same facts as in

FIR No.99/2013, is hit by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in case of T.T. Antony (supra) and hence, deserves to be quashed.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the

charges have been framed in both the criminal cases and he is not

in a position to make a statement that they are identical based on

same facts. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to

exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India to quash the FIR No. 196/2013 after a delay

of more than five years in challenging in as much as, much water

has flown since filing of the charge-sheet therein.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner with regard to resort to provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C.

(3 of 3) [CRLW-785/2019]

is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate

application before the learned trial Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the criminal writ petition is

devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/17

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)