Rajasthan High Court
Yadram Meena S/O Shri Nathuram vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 86/2022
Yadram Meena S/o Shri Nathuram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Meenapura Tehsil Ramgarh Distt. Alwar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Superintendent Of Police, Distt. Alwar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Vijayvergiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
Judgment reserved on : 18/08/2022
Date of Pronouncement : 24/08/2022
1. The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 56/2017 registered for
offence under Section 7, 13 (1) (D), 13 (2) (c) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The petitioner has challenged the FIR as well as the order of
sanction to prosecute the petitioner at Annexure-3. The FIR is
challenged on the ground that it has been falsely lodged as the
petitioner was Investigating Officer in a complaint lodged on
8.3.2017 by one Mobin against the son of the complainant namely
Abdul S/o Nawab Khan and one Jurnail Singh and the petitioner
did not concede to the demand of complainant Nawab Khan. The
sanction order at Annexure-3 is challenged on the ground of non
application of independent mind by the sanctioning authority.
(2 of 3) [CRLW-86/2022]
3. According to the FIR, one Nawab Khan made complaint to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Alwar alleging therein that the petitioner had demanded Rs.
20,000/- for ensuring exoneration of his son Abdul from criminal
charges. The complainant stated that he does not want to give
bribe. Thereafter the authorities of Anti Corruption Bureau took
out precautionary steps including recording of the conversation
between the petitioner and Nawab Khan and thereafter a trap was
put on action. The petitioner was caught while accepting Rs.
5,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid later on on the
same day. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet
in the case and the sanctioning authority, the Superintendent of
Police, Alwar accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has not showed any malice or bias against the
authorities of Anti Corruption Bureau who had trapped the
petitioner accepting the bribe, moreover after completion of
investigation, the petitioner has been forwarded to face trial. In
absence of material to even remotely assume bias on the part of
Anti Corruption Bureau or the complainant of the case, the FIR
cannot be quashed when it discloses commission of cognizable
offence.
5. Annexure-3 Sanction Order is clear enough that every small
details of incident were placed before the sanctioning authority
and was individually considered in para No. 1 to 5 and the
sanctioning authority in Para 6 of the order clearly stated that he
perused the investigation report and relevant documents placed
with the report, interacted with the Investigating Officer and
considered the oral and documentary evidences available on
record and thereafter he recorded his satisfaction that the case
(3 of 3) [CRLW-86/2022]
was fit one wherein the petitioner requires to be prosecuted,
accordingly sanction was accorded.
6. The sanction order does not reveal that the sanctioning
authority did not apply its independent mind. Non application of
independent mind would be attracted only when sanction order
appears to have been passed without consideration of material
collected during investigation or was passed at the dictate of some
other authority. In the case on hand, the sanctioning authority
has applied its independent mind and his satisfaction is based on
material disclosed in the sanction order, therefore, the same
requires no interference.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Pitamber Harwani Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Cr. Writ Petition No. 494/2016 &
other connected matters disposed of on 19.8.2019. In
Pitamber Harwani case (supra), the police had not sent the
accused for trial after investigation of the case rather submitted a
negative report. The learned Magistrate directed that there is
material against accused, therefore, asked the matter to be placed
for sanction. The sanction order reveals that the same was
accorded in pursuance of order of the Court. In view of factual
background, a Bench of this Court held that the sanction order
suffered from non application of independent mind and non
consideration of material facts on the record.
8. In the result, this petition stands dismissed as devoid of any
merit.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/79
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
