Gajendra Kumar Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7533 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 995/2022

Gajendra Kumar Solanki S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Sonaki, Aged About 41 Years, Dr. Sampurnanand Colony, P.S. Kotwali, Sirohi, Dist. Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan

2. Laxman Singh S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Jalore.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, Public Prosecutor



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

19/05/2022

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Code"), the petitioner has challenged the proceedings against him

pursuant to FIR No.416/2021, Police Station C.P.S. A.C.B., Jaipur

ACB Chowki Jalore for the offences under Sections 7 & 7A of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act of 2018") and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

pursuant to a complaint given by one Laxman Singh, a trap was

extensively made mainly for accused Masinga Ram Jangid (SDM),

under whom the petitioner was working as a reader.

3. Learned counsel argues that in the entire exhaustive FIR,

there is no allegation against the present petitioner and the

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-995/2022]

petitioner is being enroped simply because he happens to be the

reader in the office of SDM.

4. Learned counsel invites Court's attention towards the

relevant part of the FIR and points out that as per the FIR, the

petitioner was reportedly found outside the office along with the

file of Bhanwar Lal, whose appeal was pending in the SDM Court.

He argues that for this simple reason, the petitioner cannot be

accused of taking bribe unless there is any other corroborative

evidence against him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed for perusal of the Court

the entire case diary and on the basis thereof he submits that

there is a series of talks between the present petitioner and the

complainant.

6. The Court thus proceeded to peruse the transcript of the

calls between the petitioner and the complainant and those

between the complainant and the principal accused Masingaram

Jangid (SDM).

7. On perusal of the transcript of the call details, this Court

finds that the crux of talks between the petitioner and the

complainant is, essentially in relation to the date of hearing (5th).

Considering that the FIR was lodged on 22.09.2021 and by that

time, the allegation of the complainant was that the SDM Masinga

Ram Jangid is demanding bribe for deciding the appeal of Bhanwar

Lal (relative of petitioner) in his favour, it can be understood that

he would contact the petitioner who was working as SDM's reader

during the relevant time. But, then the petitioner in his entire

talks had discussed about the date of hearing.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present

case and what has been noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-995/2022]

prima facie view that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted along

with the accused Masinga Ram (SDM) in the present matter.

9. This Court is cognizant of the legal position emerging from

the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the High Court

should be slow in interfering with matters relating to anti-

corruption, but considering peculiar facts of the case and in light

of the recent judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing of

Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299, this Court is of the view that the

case in hand is one of the exception, wherein interference of this

Court is warranted to ward off abuse of the process and to avoid

otherwise untenable prosecution of the petitioner.

10. Admit. Issue notice.

11. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf

of respondent-State.

12. List this case for hearing in the month of September, 2022.

13. Meanwhile, the charge-sheet shall not be filed qua the

petitioner.

14. The State shall nevertheless be free to file charge-sheet qua

other accused after completion of investigation.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 144-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)