Dismissed

Yogendra Prasad Sharma v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Anti Corruption Bureau Vigilance

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./259/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition challenged investigating officer rank and alleged lack of mens rea and malicious prosecution. The Court noted the necessary SP order was issued and refused quashing as investigation was incomplete. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings was dismissed. Pending application and interim order dismissed/vacated.

Yogendra Prasad Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Anti… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 259 of 2016

¶3

Yogendra Prasad Sharma … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau … (Vigilance) … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the A.C.B. : Mr. G. S. Prasad, Advocate ---

¶8

17 /20.01.2020 Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

2. Heard Mr. G. S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- Anti Corruption Bureau. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) Vigilance P.S. Case No. 08/2016, corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 10/2016, for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is now said to be pending in the court of learned Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings mainly on the ground that although the case has been registered under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the investigation of the case was entrusted to one Inspector namely Jitendra Dubey. He submits that this is in violation of second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which provides that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.

¶10

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no criminal case is made out considering the allegations made in the F.I.R., in as much as, the petitioner had filed income tax returns and disclosed his assets much prior to the lodging of the

¶11

¶12

F.I.R. He has referred to returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015.

¶13

6. While advancing his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as the present prosecution is concerned, the same has been instituted at the instance of a person against whom he had lodged criminal case and accordingly, it is a case of malicious prosecution.

¶14

7. However, it is not in dispute that till today, the investigation has not yet been completed and as per letter no. 99/2019 dated 15.06.2019 issued by the learned court below, the case is pending before the learned court below awaiting final form.

¶15

Upon query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the present petition, there is no such mention as to whether the petitioner has been enlarged on bail or not.

¶16

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that a counter-affidavit and also a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed annexing therewith a copy of the written order of the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police-cum-Bureau Chief for the purposes of registering the case against the petitioner and in the said communication, the present investigating officer has been specifically authorized for the purposes of investigation of the case. Accordingly, he submits that there is no violation of Section 17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶17

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the necessary order for the purposes of investigation of the case by the investigating officer of this case has been issued and it is annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the entire

¶18

¶19

investigation of the case is in violation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶20

10. Further, so far as the argument of the petitioner that ex facie no case is made out against the petitioner by referring to Income Tax returns, this court is of the considered view that merely because some property has been shown in the Income Tax returns, the same is not sufficient to say that no case of disproportionate asset can be made out against an accused. Moreover, such plea cannot be appreciated in the present case as the final form has not yet been filed by the opposite party.

¶21

11. So far as the case of the petitioner that the present case has been lodged only by way of malicious prosecution at the instance of the person against whom he had taken action, this aspect of the matter also cannot be appreciated at the stage of quashing of the F.I.R., particularly when the investigation of the case has not yet been completed.

¶22

12. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition seeking quashing of the First Information Report along with the entire criminal proceedings and therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

¶23

13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶24

14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶25

15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.

¶26

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶27

Pankaj

Yogendra Prasad Sharma v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Anti Corruption Bureau Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Prasad Sharma v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Anti Corruption Bureau Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs Union of India And Ors.

Shri Anil Kumar Karna Vs Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

Sheo Ranjan Prasad Alias Shiv Ranjan Prasad Vs the Union of India through C B I

Madan Mohan Pandey Vs the Union of India through CBI

Rameshwar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Jitendra Meena Vs the State through C B I