[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Anil Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11670
Judgment Delivered on:31.12.2025
Judgment Reserved on:09.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.2182 of 2023
Anil Joshi ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. B.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant, Anil
Joshi, seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No. 04 of 2023 dated
05.07.2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated 19.09.2023
passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption
Act)/Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital, and the consequential proceedings of Special Sessions Trial
No. 49 of 2023, insofar as they relate to the Applicant.
2. The case originates from a written complaint dated 02.05.2023
submitted by the complainant, Rajendra Singh Mehta, before the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Haldwani. In the
complaint, allegations were levelled against one Dr. Tapan Kumar
Sharma, posted as Additional Chief Medical Officer, to the effect that
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11670
illegal gratification was being demanded in connection with publicity
programmes conducted under a government scheme.
3. On the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, and
thereafter permission was granted for laying a trap. Pre-trap
proceedings were conducted on 08.05.2023 by the Vigilance
Establishment.
4. On the same date, a trap was allegedly laid at the office of the Chief
Medical Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. It is the State's case that when
the complainant reached the said office, Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma was
stated to be attending a meeting, whereupon the present Applicant, who
was working as an Accountant on a contractual basis in the
Tuberculosis Department at the Old Hospital, Rudrapur, allegedly
asked the complainant to hand over the demanded amount.
5. It is further alleged that on the instructions of Dr. Tapan Kumar
Sharma, the complainant handed over a sum of ₹ 16,000 /- to the
Applicant, which was subsequently recovered during the trap
proceedings from a drawer beneath a table in the office.
6. Following the trap, FIR No. 03 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 was
registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at
Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Haldwani.
7. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 04 of 2023
dated 05.07.2023 was submitted against the Applicant and the co-
accused. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence on
19.09.2023 and summoned the accused persons to face trial in Special
Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2023.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the
proceedings insofar as they relate to him.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11670
9. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the State's case, even
if accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the essential ingredients of
an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
It was argued that the demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non
of the offence, and that there is no material whatsoever to show that
any such demand was made by the present Applicant.
10. It was contended that the original complaint dated 02.05.2023
was directed exclusively against the co-accused, Dr. Tapan Kumar
Sharma, and not against the Applicant. The Applicant was not named as
a person who demanded illegal gratification, and his implication
emerged only during the trap proceedings.
11. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the
Applicant was merely an Accountant engaged on a contractual basis,
whose tenure had already expired, and that he had no role or authority
in the allotment of publicity programmes, release of payments, or grant
of future contracts. It was argued that the Applicant did not occupy any
position which could enable him to confer any official favour.
12. It was also urged that the alleged recovery does not satisfy the
requirement of conscious possession, as the tainted money was not
recovered from the Applicant's person but from a drawer beneath a
table. The recovery, according to learned counsel, is further rendered
doubtful by the statement of an independent witness recorded under
Section 161 CrPC, who did not support the state version regarding
recovery from the Applicant.
13. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the state itself
admits that the complainant had already received full payment for the
publicity work prior to the alleged trap, thereby negating any plausible
motive or occasion for demand of illegal gratification. The subsequent
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11670
theory of payment for securing future contracts was described as
speculative and unsupported by any material.
14. It was lastly contended that the cognizance order has been passed
in a mechanical manner, without examining whether the foundational
ingredients of the offence were made out against the Applicant, and that
continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
15. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the
application and submitted that the case arises out of a duly authorised
and lawfully conducted trap by the Vigilance Establishment. It was
argued that the recovery of tainted currency, duly matched with the pre-
trap numbers, establishes a prima facie case against the Applicant.
16. Learned AGA contended that the Applicant acted as a conduit for
the co-accused public servant and facilitated acceptance of illegal
gratification on his behalf. It was submitted that the role attributed to
the Applicant cannot be dissected at the threshold stage.
17. It was further argued that issues relating to demand, acceptance,
credibility of witnesses, and validity of recovery are matters for trial
and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. On
these premises, dismissal of the application was prayed for.
18. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
19. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is
to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. At the
same time, it is equally well settled that where the uncontroverted
allegations and the material collected during the investigation, taken at
their face value, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11670
alleged, the High Court would be justified in interdicting the criminal
proceedings at the threshold.
20. The Applicant has been charge-sheeted for an offence under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Demand of illegal
gratification is the foundational and indispensable ingredient of the said
offence. Mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from proof of
demand, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Acceptance or
possession assumes relevance only after demand is proved. This
principle permeates the entire scheme of the Act and governs the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction in corruption cases.
21. A careful examination of the original complaint dated 02.05.2023
reveals that the allegations of demand were directed solely against the
co-accused, Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma, who was posted as Additional
Chief Medical Officer. The complaint does not attribute any demand,
overt or covert, to the present Applicant. The Applicant does not figure
as a person who initiated, negotiated, or insisted upon any illegal
gratification prior to the trap.
22. The case against the Applicant emerges only at the stage of the
trap proceedings. Even there, the allegation is not that the Applicant
demanded illegal gratification on his own behalf, but that he allegedly
received the money on the instructions of the co-accused. The material
placed with the charge sheet does not disclose any independent demand
by the Applicant. In the absence of demand, the alleged role of
receiving money, even if assumed to be correct, cannot by itself attract
Section 7 of the Act.
23. The status and functional role of the Applicant further weakens
the case. The Applicant was working as an Accountant on a contractual
basis in the Tuberculosis Department, and the record indicates that his
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11670
contractual engagement had already expired. The state counsel does not
dispute that the empanelment of art groups, allotment of publicity
programmes, and release of payments were governed by departmental
procedures and administrative authorities higher than the Applicant. No
material has been placed to show that the Applicant was in a position to
influence the award of contracts or confer any official favour.
24. The theory that the alleged gratification was intended to secure
future contracts does not find reflection in the original complaint. Such
a theory appears to have been developed subsequently during the
investigation. Notably, the prosecution itself admits that the
complainant had already received full payment for the publicity work
prior to the trap. In such circumstances, the alleged motive for demand
becomes inherently doubtful, particularly when no contemporaneous
material supports the allegation of payment for future benefit.
25. The manner of recovery also assumes relevance at this stage, not
for evaluating evidentiary sufficiency, but for assessing whether the
basic ingredients of the offence are even prima facie made out. The
tainted currency was not recovered from the personal possession of the
Applicant but from a drawer beneath a table. The drawer is stated not to
belong to the Applicant. Further, the statement of an independent
witness recorded during the investigation does not lend unequivocal
support to the version regarding conscious possession by the Applicant.
While these aspects would ordinarily fall within the domain of trial,
they acquire significance when the foundational element of demand
itself is absent.
26. In the considered opinion of this Court, continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the Applicant would amount to abuse of
the process of the Court and would result in miscarriage of justice. The
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11670
inherent jurisdiction of this Court is therefore required to be exercised
to prevent such abuse.
ORDER
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC
is allowed.
Charge Sheet No. 04 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023, the cognizance
and summoning order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/Second Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, and the entire criminal
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2023, arising out of
FIR No. 03 of 2023 registered at Police Station Vigilance
Establishment, Haldwani, District Nainital, for the offence punishable
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are hereby
quashed insofar as they relate to the present Applicant.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:31.12.2025
NR/
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2182 of 2023, Anil Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
