The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a Motor Vehicle Inspector and his driver for taking illegal gratification, holding that once the accused is exonerated on merit in departmental proceedings, the criminal trial constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
Criminal case quashed; impugned orders set aside.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51286 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2016 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 2/8
Ara with Stone Chips loaded thereon. Both the trucks were overloaded with the Stone Chips and as a result of overloading, the said trucks were seized and brought to the local police station. The driver of the said truck had met Petitioner No. 1 who told him to talk to his driver, Petitioner No. 2 herein. The Petitioner No. 2 told that in order to get the said trucks released, the driver was required to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/-. The owner of the said two vehicles did not want to give any bribe to the Petitioners and on 12th March, 2016, he lodged a complaint before the Vigilance P.S. at Patna. Immediately, after receiving the said complaint, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau made a preliminary inquiry with regard to the veracity of the allegation. On being satisfied of the truthfulness of the allegation, a vigilance trap team was formed. The driver of the vehicle was asked to pay Rs. 44,000/- to Petitioner No. 1. He received the said money and handed it over to his driver. Immediately, he was caught red-handed by the Officers constituting vigilance trap. A sum of Rs. 44,000/- was recovered from Petitioner No. 2 Satya Prakash Roy and the said amount being illegal gratification was seized from Petitioner No. 2 under proper seizure list. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 3/8
the petitioner. On the basis of the said FIR, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2016, dated 12th March, 2016 under Section 7, 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the case was entrusted to one Shyam Babu Prasad, Inspector of Police for Investigation. After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner being C.S. No. 13, dated 18th January, 2018.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 4/8
Act, the Petitioners filed an application for discharging them on the additional ground that they were exonerated from the departmental proceeding on merit and therefore, the criminal proceeding cannot be continued. However, the learned Special Judge refused to accept the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners and rejected the application for discharging them. The Petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application, bringing the above-mentioned facts on record with a prayer also to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting their application for discharging them and quashing the criminal proceeding.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 5/8
“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 6/8
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 7/8
no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the Court.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51286 of 2018(2) dt.03-07-2024 8/8
2016, arising out of Vigilance Police Station Case No. 28 of 2016, pending against the Petitioners is quashed and the impugned orders dated 19.01.2018 as also dated 13.05.2024 are set aside.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal prosecution can continue when the accused is exonerated on merit in departmental proceedings?
Whether the court can quash criminal proceedings upon finding they are an abuse of the process of the court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.Relied on¶27
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 581 · Who else cites this
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.Followed¶41
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr. (2020) 9 SCC 636 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Binod Kumar
Satya Prakash Roy
State of Bihar
Babalu Kumar Singh
BibeK Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
