A blind quashing petition filed against an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that the trial court is the appropriate forum to examine allegations of bribery during employment.
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.
34-cri-wp-3939-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3939 OF 2019
Sou. Geeta Y. Sadul and anr. V/s.
… Petitioners
State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents
Mr. Ritesh Thobde for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2019.
P.C.
1] The Headmaster and the Clerk in employment of Educational Institution are before this Court to quash FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The contention is as per the Resolution taken before hand, the Management was collecting donations and the petitioners have insisted only for its payment.
2] Learned APP has taken us through the relevant portions of the FIR.
3] It appears that the complainant (respondent No.2) was present at the time of passing of Resolution. However, he
1/3
Dinesh Sherla
34-cri-wp-3939-19.doc
could not pay Rs.20,000/- as donation. He paid only Rs.2000/-. The Management, therefore, informed the Education Ofcer and his salary was withheld. The Education Ofcer then informed respondent No.2 about the directions issued by the Management and respondent No.2 therefore, came back to the Management and there, he was told that as he has not paid complete amount, his salary was withheld.
4] The contention is donation amount or its collection cannot be seen as bribe.
5] We are not willing to examine this aspect in the present matter in extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioners have abused their position and forced unwilling respondent No.2 to pay the donation. Not only this, they have also brought influence upon the Education Ofcer, who has withheld the salary of respondent No.2.
6] We fail to understand as to why the Investigating Ofcer has not invoked other provisions of Indian Penal Code in the matter.
2/3
Dinesh Sherla
34-cri-wp-3939-19.doc
that the question whether amount collected is bribe or not can be looked into by the Trial Court at appropriate juncture.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3/3
Dinesh Sherla
Sou. Geeta Y. Sadul
State of Maharashtra
B.P. Dharmadikari
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
