Disposed

Nathu Singh v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC26 Aug 2017CRLMP/1992/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIRs alleging non-involvement in alleged corruption offences. Withdrawing quashing orders to allow petitioner to submit detailed representations on non-involvement to the Investigating Officer and sanctioning authority for objective consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit detailed representations to I.O. and sanctioning authority regarding non-involvement.

Nathu Singh Vs State and Anr. — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1980 / 2016

¶3

Nathu Singh son of Khangar Singh, by caste Rajput, the then Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Jaisalmer, presently posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Gudamalani, District Barmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1992 / 2016 Nathu Singh son of Khangar Singh, by caste Rajput, the then Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Jaisalmer, presently posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Gudamalani, District Barmer.

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Rajasthan

¶13

Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P.Rathi, P.P. with Mr. Anil Purohit, Dy. S.P. ACB, Jaisalmer.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment / Order

¶18

26/08/2017

¶19

These two misc. petitions have been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Nathu Singh seeking quashing of F.I.R. Nos. 576/2013 and 516/2013 registered at ACD Jaisalmer (CPS ACB Jaipur) for the offences.

¶20

Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel vehemently urges that

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

the prosecution of the petitioner in both these cases is absolutely unwarranted for the reason that the petitioner was totally unconnected with the entire transaction in relation whereof the F.I.Rs. have been registered. He thus urges that the impugned F.I.Rs. should be quashed.

¶23

The I.O. present in the Court states that investigation is still under investigation and the exact responsibility of the petitioner in the alleged commission of the offence has still not been decided. In this background learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh urged that the petitioner may be allowed to submit a detailed representation to the I.O. who in turn be directed to conduct thorough investigation into the matter while taking the representation into account for finding out the responsibility or otherwise of the petitioner. He further urges that in case the I.O. comes to a conclusion indicating the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences, then, he be given opportunity to submit a representation to the sanctioning authority and in turn the sanctioning authority be directed to consider the said representation and pass a detailed order thereupon while deciding the question of sanction. To this submission learned P.P. does not object.

¶24

In view of the above circumstances, both these misc. petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit detailed representations for ventilating his grievance to the I.O and if required to the sanctioning authority. It is expected from both these authorities that in case the petitioner submits any

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

representation for ventilating his grievance about his non involvement in the offences, such representation shall be objectively considered and dealt with after assigning detailed

¶27

reasons.

¶28

These misc. petitions are disposed of with the liberty as

¶29

prayed for. A copy of the order be placed in each file.

¶30

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶31

/sushil/

Nathu Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badridas Suthar Vs Babulal Sharma Bank Vale and Anr.

Badridas Vs Babulal @ Bank Vale and Anr.

Rajendra Pareek Vs Mangesh

Ishak @ Mendak Vs State

Shyam Sunder Vs State

Roshan Ali Vs State and Anr.