Rajasthan High Court
Batti Lal Meena S/O Shri Kajod Mal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 February, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5272/2021
Batti Lal Meena S/o Shri Kajod Mal Meena, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Village And Post Jonia, District Sawai Madhopur Presently
Posted In The Office Of Director General Prison Office At
Ghatgate, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Rastogi, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/02/2022
By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, challenge
has been made to the very lodging of FIR No. 74/2017 registered
at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur (Out post Kota) and all
consequential proceedings including submission of charge-sheet,
taking cognizance and framing of charges.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie,
no offence under Section 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 is made out against the petitioner and therefore, filing
of charge-sheet against the petitioner under the above provisions
is bad in law. He further submits that the offence under Sections
13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also
not made out. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana
Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-5272/2021]
Pradesh and Anr. [(2015) 10 SCC 152] and referred the para
20 of the judgment and submits that in view of the judgment cited
above, the proceedings against the petitioner are required to be
quashed and set aside.
He further submits that the allegations leveled in the FIR and
the material collected during the course of the investigation is
nothing but a bundle of lies. The learned Judge, Special Court has
failed to apply its mind before taking cognizance of the offence. It
is also submitted that while framing the charges, the learned Trial
Court has not acted in accordance with law as prima facie there
was no material on the basis of which opinion can be formed that
the accused should be put on trial.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are
grave allegations in the FIR for which ample evidence has been
collected during the course of the investigation. On the basis of
the material available on record, the learned Judge took
cognizance of the offence and framed charges which requires no
interference of this Court while exercising power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
Heard. Perused the material available of record, the contents
of the FIR and the charge-sheet as well as the order whereby the
learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded
to frame charges against the petitioner.
This Court is aptly guided by the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 9 SCC 35] propounding that the High
Court should refrain from interference in cases where the charge-
sheet is submitted and charges are framed since appreciation of
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5272/2021]
evidence is not permissible at the stage of hearing a petition for
quashing of the FIR.
Prima facie, there is evidence that the accused-petitioner
who happened to be Assistant Jailer at the relevant point of time
at Central Jail, Kota and as per the allegations, he used to accept
illegal gratification from the family members of the prisoners and
if any family member of a prisoner refuse to pay the bribe, the
petitioner used to treat them rudely.
Prior to lodging of FIR, the phone numbers of the petitioner
and the other persons were intercepted, the call data record and
the conversation made in between the petitioner and the other
accused persons clearly reveals involvement of the petitioner in
the commission of crime. The transcript is available on record.
Since, there are other accused in this case who are not
public servants, therefore, Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Act are
invoked. Prima facie, there is material to show criminal
misconduct of the petitioner.
This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry so as
to examine the reliability and genuineness of the allegations made
in the FIR and the statement recorded during the course of the
investigation, nor this Court is expected to conduct a mini trial
before the actual trial. The submission made by counsel for the
petitioner are devoid of any merit and thus, deserves to be
rejected.
Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly the nature of allegations and the
availability of the material available on record, this Court is not
inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner. The
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5272/2021]
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid
of any merit and thus, deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
SAHIL SONI /113
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
