This court dismissed an application praying for quashing of an FIR and investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the grounds that the investigation was complete and further jeopardy at this stage would be premature.
Application for quashing of FIR and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Application No.2253 of 2012
Sanjivkumar Baburao Wadikar.
.. Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Another. .. Respondents.
Shri. D.V. Soman, Advocate, with Shri. A.D. Soman, Advocate, for the applicant.
Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 10th JULY 2013
ORDER:
2
Corruption Act, 1988. It is stated that the applicant was transferred on the same day i.e. 1st December 2011 from Dhule to the subject check post as Motor Vehicle Inspector. On the subject spot there is incoming check post and outgoing check post. The applicant was posted on incoming check post. It is the prosecution case that certain persons were caught in a trap at the outgoing check post regarding allowing transport vehicles to pass through. The applicant joined his duties at 2.00 p.m. and at 3.45 p.m. the trap was laid according to the applicant .
3
initiated against them who were already discharging their duties at the said check post. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The conduct of the applicant is not blameworthy. Whatever assets the applicant had were already disclosed in the record. Neither the applicant demanded money directly or indirectly nor he accepted the same. In such fact situation, according to the learned counsel, registration of the First Information Report and initiation of investigation based on the same would amount to abuse of process of law. In the submission of the counsel, this is a fit case where this Court would exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel further submitted that the investigation has been delayed unnecessarily and since last several months sanction is not asked for and the applicant has been kept under suspension for a period of six months. The applicant’s career is at stake. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances, prayer is made to the Court to quash the proceedings by allowing this application.
4
“12. I say that, further, spot panchanama was prepared in the presence of competent Panchas & from the spot Rs.5,300/- unaccounted money was found in the custody of Bhausaheb Kadam and Rs.9,100/- was found from accused Sinkar and Gavit. The present petitioner was the in charge of both the outgoing & incoming check post. Further, present petitioner was in charge of M.C.R. (Memo cum Receipt Book). Further cash receipt Books bearing No.1468/11 to 1477/11 and 201/11 to 202/11, 261/11 to 262/11 these cash vouchers were availed. Further cash amount of Rs.6,68,696 was recovered from Shantilal Gavit and Suresh Shinkar and excess amount of Rs.9,100 was recovered and no explanation was offered by the accused. Receipt Book No.1475/11 till 1477/11 are the compounding fees receipts which were issued under the direction of present petitioner. Receipt Books No.1475 and 1477 were sent to Handwriting experts & the result is awaited in respect of questioned documents. In fact the documents contents of these receipts were written by the private agents at the instance of present petitioner. Investigation regarding the scribes of these document is matter of investigation which is going on.
18. I further say and submit that, the contention of petitioner that on the first day of posting at Hadakhed check post he had no intention to commit the offence. During the course of investigation it was transpired that present petitioner had worked at Hadakhed check post prior to incident. Further on the date of incident he was the sole responsible and commanding officer present on the spot. Further there were statements that private agents were directly working under the direction of present petitioner. I say that, the present petitioner was the master mind of the said crime accuse Bhausaheb had accepted the amount on behalf of present petitioner hence no question of anthracene powder glistening the hands of petitioner. The actual perpetrator of crime i.e. accuse Bhausaheb was acting under the direction of present petitioner. Further present petitioner is working since 1999 in the R.T.O. department.
5
19. I say and submit that, during house search, it was found that father and wife of present petitioner are the owners of Indian Ambience Vineyards Private Ltd. Company, 2 swift cars, 2 flats booked in the name of wife of petitioner at Panvel, other investments, which seems to be beyond the earning sources of the petitioner. Therefore inquiry is initiated, which is going on. In the reported case law of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and Anr. vs. M/s. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners P. Ltd., reported in 2009 CRLJ 2852, Hon’ble Apex Court held that, quashing of proceedings – Complaint filed by respondent against appellant alleging cheating and fraud – Appellant who was dealing in cotton as Commission agent, supplied 900 bales of cotton to respondent – However, remaining 100 bales of cotton were not dispatched by him despite full payment – Prima facie case made out – Defence raised by appellant can be considered at trial – Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.”
6
seized. After collecting the evidence a proposal to prosecute the applicant and five other persons has been submitted to the sanctioning authority. The learned APP submits that this is not a fit case where this Court should invoke inherent jurisdiction for quashing the First Information Report and the consequent investigation.
7
officers in collecting money at such check posts by themselves or through strangers and third persons is a matter of serious concern not only for the State but for the society at large. At the same time, necessary precaution is required to be taken to see that the innocent persons are not unnecessarily harassed and involved. Such cases depend on the assessment and verification of the facts and the material collected by the investigating agencies. The issue relating to laying of the trap and its proper execution would be looked into by the Court at appropriate stages. Various issues crop up when such matter are taken up by the Court for the purposes of holding trials.
8
Sd/- Sd/- (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and proceedings alleging corruption at a check post at this stage.
Whether the investigation material collected so far renders it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings before sanction is obtained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjivkumar Baburao Wadikar
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H PATIL
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
