Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Ratan Tiwari Son Of Shri Devi ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6856/2022
Dr. Ratan Tiwari Son Of Shri Devi Sahay Tiwari, Director Of
Saraswati Memorial Trust, Tiwari House, Behind Raj Hotel, Near
Railway Station, Dausa (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Mohesh Choudhary Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, G.A.-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
Judgment reserved on : 29.09.2022
Judgment pronounced on : 20.10.2022
1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No.
214/2012 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Police
Station for offences under Section 13(1)(d) 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C.
Act") and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to FIR, different training institutes for Nursing
Courses were reportedly running in the State of Rajasthan. There
is requirement of obtaining No Objection Certificate from the
Health Department of the Government to run training courses for
nursing. For obtaining No Objection Certificate, the applicant must
produce a report about the required infrastructure in pursuance of
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6856/2022]
the guidelines mentioned in the Regulation for setting up of a
college of nursing effective from 24.4.2004. On receipt of the
application, an inspection team is constituted by the Government
to inspect and report about the availability of the infrastructure. In
between 16.3.2012 to 29.3.2012, premises of the different
nursing institutes were verified and it was noticed that without
fulfilling the required standard, they have got No Objection
Certificate and are running the training institutes.
3. So far the present allegation is concerned, on 17.3.2017
premises of Ambrocia college of nursing which belongs to the
petitioner was inspected. The petitioner reported that the college
had already No Objection Certificate for imparting nursing training
on 40 seats. The No Objection Certificate dated 28.2.2012 was
issued by the Deputy Secretary of Health Department. Thereafter,
the FIR recites about the requirement of infrastructure for running
the institute which was not there with Ambrocia college of
Nursing. The FIR alleges that the inspection team consisting of
Doctor R.K. Gupta, Associate Professor, Sawai Mansingh Hospital,
Jaipur and Rajkumari Sharma, PHN, ANMTC, Banswara in collusion
with the petitioner submitted a wrong report favouring grant of No
Objection Certificate. The members of the inspection team
breached their offices and on the basis of wrong documents and
wrong facts, just to ensure unlawful gain to the petitioner, had
submitted the report of recommendation for grant of No Objection
Certificate.
4. Mr. Anil Upman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that no offence under the P.C. Act is made out against anyone
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6856/2022]
hence, the impugned FIR which does not disclose offence under
the P.C. Act is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel next contends
that several FIRs were lodged against some other institutes also
and the police after investigation of the case had submitted
negative report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
through CBI, New Delhi Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh, (2014)
11 SCC 724. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
whether the Special Judge can try the offence under P.C. Act along
any non P.C. Act offence. Therefore, the case has no bearing on
this case.
5. Mr. G.S. Rathore, G.A.-cum-AAG, for State respondent
contends that the petitioner did not present the actual premise of
Ambrocia college of nursing for the purpose of inspection, rather
showed the premise of one Prayag TT Girls College posing it as
Ambrocia college of nursing. There is requirement of 23720
square feet of land to run a nursing college, however, the
petitioner could not produce document of possession of the
required area of land. Learned State counsel contends that
assuming that no offence under P.C. Act is made out, it cannot be
argued that the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence which
should be allowed to be investigated. Learned counsel has relied
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.,
reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 for his contention that it is only in
cases where no cognizable offence or offences of any kind is
disclosed in the First Information Report, the Court will not permit
any investigation to go on.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6856/2022]
6. Since the investigation is at the verge of conclusion, this
Court is not inclined to reproduce in threadbare manner the
offences of the Indian Penal Code which are made out on bare
perusal of the FIR as it would prejudice the investigation.
However, makes it clear that the FIR discloses commission of
cognizable offence, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed.
7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/104
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
