Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11404 Raj

(1 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2342/2019

Om Prakash Bairwa S/o Shri Ramlal Bairwa, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Minare Ke Pass, Mandal, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara, Presently Working As District Transport Officer, Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1339/2019 Prakashchandra Kabra S/o Shri Madan Lal Kabra, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, Proprietor Shreenath Travels Agency.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1340/2019 Prakashchandra Kabra S/o Shri Madan Lal Kabra, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, Proprietor Shreenath Travels Agency.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1341/2019 Prakashchandra Kabra S/o Shri Madan Lal Kabra, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, Proprietor Shreenath Travels Agency.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2343/2019 Om Prakash Gupta S/o Ramkaran Gupta, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post Med, District Jaipur, Presently Working As Assistant Accounts Officer, Dto Office, Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand.

                                                  ----Respondents


                                     (2 of 17)                  [CRLMP-2342/2019]

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2345/2019 Nain Singh Sodha S/o Kishan Singh Sodha, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Engineer House, Laxminagar, Barmer Presently Working As District Transport Officer, Jaisalmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2346/2019 Nand Kishore Sen S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Ji Sen, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of House No. 94, Goverdhan Puri, Galta Gate, Jaipur Presently Residing At Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2348/2019 Anil Pandya S/o Shri Hem Prakash Pandya, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Parundi Post Lohariya Tehsil Gadhi District Banswara, Presently Working As District Transport Officer, Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2572/2019 Rajiv Choudhary S/o Sh. Prayag Singh Choudhary, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of House No. 306/1, Joshi Bhawan, Christian Ganj, Ajmer Presently Working As Acting District Transport Officer, Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2573/2019 Ghanshyam Gupta S/o Sh. Prahlad Swaroop Gupta, Aged About 51 Years, R/o House Village Post Thikariya , Tehsil Sikarai , Distt. Dausa Presently Working As Assistant Statistical Officer , Elementary Education Department , Prarambhik Shiksha Parishad , Shiksha Sankul Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau , Rajsamand

----Respondents

(3 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana Mr. Rajat Dave For Respondents : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, G.A. cum A.A.G.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

14/09/2022

1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Petition No. 2342/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.195/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS, Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

Petition No.1339/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present Criminal Misc. Petition and the FIR No.196/2017 registered on dated 21.07.2017, at Police Station CPS ACB JAIPUR, against the petitioner for the alleged offences U/S 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 & 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner."

Petition No.1340/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept

(4 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

and allow the present Criminal Misc. Petition and the FIR No.195/2017 registered on dated 21.07.2017, at Police Station CPS ACB JAIPUR, against the petitioner for the alleged offences U/S 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 & 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner."

Petition No.1341/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present Criminal Misc. Petition and the FIR No.197/2017 registered on dated 21.07.2017, at Police Station CPS ACB JAIPUR, against the petitioner for the alleged offences U/S 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 & 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner."

Petition No.2343/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.195/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

Petition No.2345/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.195/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

                                     (5 of 17)                  [CRLMP-2342/2019]



Petition No.2346/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.197/2017 dated 21.07.2017 alleging offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

Petition No.2348/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.197/2017 dated 21.07.2017 alleging offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

Petition No.2572/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.196/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

Petition No.2573/2019:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.196/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law."

(6 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

2. The issues raised in all the instant petitions arise out of a

common controversy, and therefore, the facts, as placed before

this Court by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel assisted

by Mr. Govind Suthar and; Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Ms.Priyanka Borana and Mr. Rajat Dave,

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are being taken from S.B.

Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2342/2019, while treating the same as

the lead case.

3. During September-November 2016, M/s Shrinath Travels

(also referred to as 'the Firm') applied at the offices of D.T.O.

Shahpura, D.T.O. Rajsamand and D.T.O. Chittorgarh for Private

Service Vehicle (PSV) permits for its buses, and accordingly, the

same were issued.

3.1 Petitioners Om Prakash Bairwa and Nain Singh Sodha were

working as D.T.O. Rajsamand, while petitioner-Anil Pandya was

working as D.T.O. Shahpura and petitioner-Rajiv Choudhary as

D.T.O. Chittorgarh, at the time of the issue of the aforesaid

permits. At that time, petitioner-Om Prakash Gupta was an

employee at D.T.O. Office, Rajsamand, petitioner-Nandkishore Sen

at D.T.O. Office, Shahpura, and petitioner-Ghanshyam Gupta was

an employee at D.T.O. Office, Chittorgarh.

3.2 A news item was published on 20.01.2017 in 'Rajasthan

Patrika', on the basis of which petitioner-Nain Singh Sodha, in the

capacity of D.T.O. Rajsamand, issued a notice to M/s. Shrinath

Travels stating therein that the buses were being used as 'contract

carriages' instead of 'private service vehicles' and called upon the

said Firm to deposit motor vehicle tax, special road tax and

surcharge and penalty, further directing the Firm to appear before

him on 23.01.2017; along side the same, another notice was

(7 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

issued proposing action against the Firm under Section 86 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while directing three S.I. rank police

officers to conduct an inquiry, and submit a report in regard

thereto.

3.3 In the meanwhile, surprise inspections were conducted of the

D.T.O. Offices - Rajsamand, Shahpura and Chittorgarh by the

A.C.B. and relevant records were seized.

3.4 On 07.02.2017, a notice was issued by the D.T.O. Rajsamand

to the Firm for deposition of aforementioned dues, and on

15.02.2017, a warrant for attachment of property was issued

against 12 buses of the Firm-M/s.Shrinath Travel Agency,

whereupon the Firm approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing

various writ petitions; 7 buses were released in compliance of the

orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, on 27.02.2017.

3.5 On 03.03.2017, the Firm was issued a notice for hearing of

the matter under Section 86 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

and the entire dues in regard to permits issued by the three D.T.O.

were recovered along with penalty and interest, on count of

violation of the terms and conditions of PSV permits, while

treating the same as Contract Carriage Permits.

3.6 However, on 21.07.2017, three F.I.R.s being F.I.R. Nos.

195/17, 196/17, 197/17 were registered by the A.C.B. against the

petitioners and the owner of M/s.Shrinath Travel Agency in regard

to permits issued by the offices of the three D.T.O., alleging

offences under Sections 13(1) (c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C.

3.7 A final enquiry report was submitted by the Additional R.T.O.,

Udaipur on the same allegations, wherein the petitioners were

exonerated from the charges of collusion, and it was found that no

(8 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

revenue loss has occurred and the dues have already been

recovered. And that, it was further held that there was neither

negligence nor any abuse of power or post by the petitioners and

that the news item was baseless.

3.8 A tax assessment order was passed by the D.T.O. Rajsamand

on 31.03.2018; which was assailed by the Firm in appeal before

the Regional Transport Authority (Appeals), Udaipur, but the same

was dismissed, on 31.03.2019, with the finding that no illegalities

in the issuance of permits was found.

3.9 That the petitioners Om Prakash Bairwa, Anil Pandya, Rajiv

Choudhary and Om Prakash Gupta were suspended on grant of

prosecution sanction whereupon they filed writ petitions before

this Hon'ble Court, whereby the effect and operation of the

suspension orders was stayed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the

allegations levelled against the petitioners are baseless and

unsustainable. And that, a bare perusal of the F.I.Rs. would reveal

that the ingredients for the offences under Section 13 (1) (c) (d)

are prima facie not made out.

4.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in the

cases; 2015 SCC Online Rajasthan 10647 Prof. M.K. Vyas v.

State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2016 SCC Online Raj. 766 Veer

Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan; (2013) 1 SCC 205 C.K.

Jaffer Sharief v. State; 2018 (2) R.L.W. 1302 (Raj.) Pushpa

Devi Jain v. State; and 2020 (3) R.L.W. 2295 (Raj.) Lal

Chand Aswal v. State of Rajasthan.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the final enquiry

report was not duly considered, whereby the petitioners were

exonerated from all the charges levelled against them.

(9 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

4.2.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in the

cases; 2022 SCC Online SC 82 Mustt. Rehana Begum v.

State of Assam, 196 (9) SCC 1; 1996(9) SCC 1 P.S. Rajya v.

State of Bihar and; Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit v. State (S.B. Crl.

Misc.(Pet.) No. 2744/2014, decided by this Hon'ble Court on

30.05.2016).

4.3 Learned Senior Counsel also submit that there was no

revenue loss to the State Exchequer, and that the department

acted swiftly and recovered the entire amount of dues, including

penalty and interest for the months in question. Furthermore, the

said recovery was made prior to the filing of the F.I.Rs. in

question, and that the same is clear from a perusal of the record;

as the recovery was initiated on 20.1.2017, while the A.C.B. action

was initiated on 23.01.2017.

4.3.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in the

case of Pushpa Devi Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 (2)

R.L.W. 1302 (Raj.).

4.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submit that the petitioners

have been implicated solely on the basis of the F.I.R. in question,

and that a mere possible misuse of the private service permits

cannot be stretched to the extent of guilt to sustain charges, at

least, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4.5. Learned Senior Counsel also submit that the present case is

a fit case for indulgence of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

and that such exercise would be warranted even in the case where

a prosecution sanction was granted, wherein the Court could

interfere and consider the challenge to the F.I.R.

4.5.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in the

cases of 1992 (Supl. 1) SCC 335 State of Haryana and Ors.

(10 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. and 2016 SCC Online Raj. 766

Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan.

4.6 Learned Senior Counsel further submit that the inherent

jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. may also be exercised by the

Court, even in cases where the charge-sheet has been filed by the

concerned police authorities.

4.6.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in the

case of 2019 (11) SCC 705 Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State

(N.C.T. of Delhi).

5. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. cum G.A. Mr.M.A. Siddiqui

opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and

submits that a prima facie case, as ought to be considered at this

stage, is made out against the petitioners, and therefore,

submissions made on their behalf, seeking the indulgence of this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted.

5.1 He further submits that from the investigation so conducted,

the allegations levelled against the petitioners for the offences as

mentioned in the F.I.Rs. in question are found to be made out.

And that, the prosecution sanction for the same has also been

granted. However, due to the stay granted in the favour of the

petitioners, the investigating agency is restrained from proceeding

against the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the

Cr.P.C.

5.2 He thus submits that the stay granted in the favour of the

petitioners, vide the respective orders in each of the matters,

ought to be vacated by this Court, so that the investigation could

culminate into filing of the charge-sheet, and the law could take

its own course, against the petitioners.

                                          (11 of 17)                 [CRLMP-2342/2019]



5.3     He therefore, submits that the present petitions ought to be

disposed of with liberty to the investigating agencies to file the

charge-sheet, since the matters are pending since the year 2019,

and that the expeditious disposal of the same would be in the

interest of justice.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

7. At the outset, this Court observes that, per the ratio

decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.

(supra), 7 cardinal principles were expounded, warranting the

interference of the Court under the inherent powers of Section 482

Cr.P.C.

The same is reproduced as hereunder for ready reference and

brevity:-

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(12 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."

8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as lucidly

enumerated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and

(13 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

as is reflected from a bare reading of the impugned F.I.Rs. and

other documents placed on record, that the ingredients for the

offences under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d) / (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. are not made out as

no specific allegations have been made to that extent, against the

petitioners.

9. The relevant portion of the final enquiry report dated

17.09.2018, as mentioned above, whereby the petitioners were

exonerated of the charges of collusion, while finding that no

revenue loss had occurred to the State Exchequer, and that the

aforementioned news item was baseless, reads as under:

" . . . . . blls Li"V :i ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd fdlh Hkh ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh vFkok deZpkjh dh mDr QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk jktleUn ls feyhHkxr ugha gS u gh fdlh vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh }kjk vius in dk nq:i;ksx ;k dk;Z esa ykijokgh dh gSA iqu%'p leLr izdj.k esa fnukad 20-01-2017 dks tSls gh laKku esa vk;k ,oa f'kdk;rksa dk lR;kiu gqvk] lEcaf/kr QeZ ds f[kykQ l[r dk;Zokgh djrs gq, ek= pkj ekg dh vYikof/k ¼20-01-2017 ls 15-04-2017 rd½ esa mDr QeZ ls 62]86][email protected]& ¼cklB yk[k fN;kalh gtkj nks lkS rjk.kosa :i;s½ dze'k% 20]99][email protected]& ¼ chl yk[k fuU;kuos gtkj uks lkS cjk.kosa :i;s½ fnukad 15-03-2017 ,oa 17-03-2017 ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy; 'kkgiqjk HkhyokM+k esa ,oa 21]57][email protected]& ¼bZfDdl yk[k lRrkou gtkj uks lkS fipkuosa :i;s½ fnukad 30-03-2017 ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy; fpRrkSM+x<+ esa rFkk 20]28][email protected]& ¼chl yk[k vBkbZl gtkj rhu lkS N% :i;s½ fnukad +11-03-2017] 21-03-2017 ,oa 13-04-2017 dks ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy;

jktleUn esa djyh xbZ gSA mDr izdj.k esa ;g Li"V gS fd leLr jktdh; jktLo dh e; C;kt ,oa isuYVh olwyh dh tk pqdh gS] ftlls ifjogu foHkkx dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ys'k ek= Hkh jktLo gkfu ugha gqbZ gS rFkk fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh }kjk lEcaf/kr QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½ ls feyhHkxr djus ;k voS/kkfud rjhds ls ifjykHk ;k lqfo/kk,sa izkIr djus dk dksbZ Hkh lcwr izdV ;k lalqfpr ugha gqvk gSA tcfd leLr izdj.k esa lEcaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh dk;Z dq'kyrk izekf.kr gksrh gSA

(14 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

vr% eSa aizHkqyky ckeuh;k vfrfjDr izknsf'kd ifjogu vf/kdkjh mn;iqj mDr leLr izdj.k esa foLr`r tkap dj bl fu"d"kZ ij igwapk gwa fd %& 1- mDr leLr izdj.k esa ;g rF; fo'ks"k :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd futh lsok;ku ijfeV gsrq vkosnu drkZ Lo;a ,d jftLVMZ QeZ gS] ftlds }kjk ifjogu foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr] futhlsok;ku gsrq izk:i ala[;k 5] 6 esa vkosnu fd;k x;k ,oa vkosnd dh ea'kkuqlkj izk:i 5-14 es futh lsok;ku ijfeV gh tkjh fd, x,A tks fd fu;ekuqlkj fof/klEer dk;Zokgh gSA D;ksafd dsUnzh; eksVj okgu vf/ kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 80 ds vuqlkj vkosnd ftl izdkj ,oa ftl

m)s'; ds fy, vuqKki= ¼ijfeV½ ekax jgk gS mldks vuqKki= tkjh djrs le; jksdk ugha tk ldrk gSA vr% lHkh ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fo'kq) ea'kk ls mDr ijfeV tkjh fd, x, tks fd fof/k lEer gSA 2- mDr leLr izdj.k esa ijfeV /kkjd QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½ }kjk ijfeV 'krksZ ds mYya?ku ds dkj.k dsUnzh; eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 76 dk gh mYya?ku djrs gq, dksUVªsDV dsfjt ds :i esa okguksa dk lapkyu dj] djoapuk (Tax Evasion) dh tk jgh FkhA ftlds fo:) leLr izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fof/k lEer rfjds ls ek= pkj ekg fd vYikof/k ¼20-01-2017 ls 15-04-2017 rd½ es gh leLr vfrfjDr cdk;k jktLo dh izkfIr 62]86][email protected]& ¼cklB yk[k fN;klh gtkj nks lkS rjk.kosa :i;s½ e; C;kt ,oa iSuYVh ds lkFk olwy dj ds dk;Zdq'kyrk dk ifjp; fn;k gSA 3- mDr leLr izdj.k esa f'kdk;r ds fuLrkj.k esa ifjogu foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us loZizFke vfxze igy dj ¼fnukad 20-01- 2017 ls gh½ leLr jktdh; jktLo dh olwyh fof/klEer rjhds ls dk;Zokgh djrs gq, dh gS ftlls mDr leLr izdj.k esa jkT; ljdkj dks ys'k ek= Hkh jktLo gkfu ugha igqaph gSA 4- leLr izdj.k esa nLrkostksa ds fujh{k.k ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd leLr okguksa dk iathd`r Lokeh ,oa futhlsok;ku ¼vuqKki=½ ijfeV /kkjd jftLVMZ QeZ ^^JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½** gSA ijfeV dk vkosnu fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM }kjk ugha fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa uk gh leLr okguksa dk Lokeh fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dks cuk;k x;k FkkA ijfeV dk vkosnu QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½ }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa ijfeV Hkh mlh QeZ dks tkjh fd, x, FksA vr%

(15 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

lekpkj i= dh bl [kcj dk [k.Mu gksrk gS fd fefyHkxr dj fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dks okguksa dk Lokeh cuk fn;k x;kA vr% bl fo'oluh; rF; ds lkFk fd ^uhthlsok;ku* ijfeV /kkjd okguksa dk dkWUVªsDV dsjht ;ku ijfeV /kkjd okgu ds :i esa djuk ^jftLVMZ QeZ& JhukFk VªsoYl ,tsUlh dk gh nks"k gS] ,oa mDr nks"kh }kjk leLr jktLo e; C;kt ,oa isuYVh ds lkFk loZ= tek djk;k tk pqdk gSA vr% leLr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fo'kq) ea'kk ls ijfeV nsus ds dk;Z ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA Jheku~ dh lsok esa ewy gh tkap fjiksVZ e; fjdkMZ ,oa vuqHko/kkfjr rF;ksa ds lkFk okLrs vxzhe dk;Zokgh izsf"kr gSA"

10. This Court is conscious of fact that in the given factual

matrix, wherein once the alleged default is purely done during the

discharge of official duties and in the collection of revenue, then it

is the department, which would be in the best position to ascertain

and assess the conduct of the petitioner-officials, so as to find out,

if there was any dereliction of duty on their part or whether any

fraud was committed by them.

11. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the

allegations are pertaining to the record of the concerned

department, the observations made by the department itself make

it very clear that after seeing the record, it has not found any

revenue loss / tax evasion having been occurred or any kind of

deliberate or intentional default having been committed by the

concerned officials, including the present petitioners.

12. This Court thus, observes that the government officers

(petitioners) are a bridge for the allegations to travel upto the

private parties, and once the said bridge itself collapses and no

offences are found to be made out against the officials herein, the

allegations, as levelled upon the private parties, cannot be

sustained in the given factual matrix. When the act of the

(16 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

officer(s) itself was found to be not constituting any kind of

dereliction of duty or causing any kind of illegality or causing any

revenue loss to the State Exchequer, then the allegations cannot

travel further to the private parties.

13. This Court further draws strength from the observations

made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mustt. Rehana

Begum (supra) and that of a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble

Court in the case of Prof. M.K. Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

(Supra). Furthermore, the ratio decidendi laid down in the case of

Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit v. State (supra) squarely applies to the

present case, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court

observed that since the Government had dropped the

proceedings/inquiry on the administrative side, there was no

reason for the criminal proceedings to be allowed to continue.

Similar observations to that extent, and regarding the vigilance

that a Court must exercise in initiating criminal proceedings

against an accused, were observed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court in the case of Lal Chand Aswal (supra).

13.1 This Court further observes that for a case, as mentioned in

the impugned FIRs, to be made out against the petitioners, and

for which prosecution is sought against the petitioners, require

that a demand for any kind of illegal gratification was made by the

accused, on the basis of which further proceedings may be

initiated against the accused, as set out under the Act of 1988.

However, the same is absent in the present case.

13.2 The observations by this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi

Jain (supra) are also relevant to the present case, that the

element of corrupt and illegal means for obtaining, for himself or

(17 of 17) [CRLMP-2342/2019]

another, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, with or

without public interest, is apparently not found in the present set

of facts, as discussed above.

14. This Court is thus of the clear opinion that principles no. 2

and 3, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) apply in

the present case, and therefore, it is a fit case for exercising

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court, and

quash the impugned F.I.Rs in the instant batch of petitions, all

arising out of the same factual matrix and common controversy.

15. Resultantly, the present petitions are allowed and the

impugned FIR Nos.195/2017, 196/2017 & 197/2017 lodged at

Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS, Jaipur, alongwith

entire proceedings pursuant thereto, qua the present petitioners,

are quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed

of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

237-246-Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)