Dismissed

Paramveer Singh v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2019CRLW/384/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging prosecution sanction, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the plea. The Court held that since investigation material existed against the petitioner establishing his presence and demand, refusal of sanction against co-accused provided no ground to reconsider or quash the sanction granted.

What did the court decide?

No directions given to authorities to reconsider prosecution sanction; writ petition dismissed.

Paramveer Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 384/2018

¶3

Paramveer Singh S/o Sh. Raghuveer Singh, R/o Ward No.4, Jobner, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Sec

¶7

The Director, Local Self Government, Near Civil Lines Railway Crossing, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. A.K. Gupta
For Unit Incharge	:	Mr. Narottam Lal Verma, Addl. S.P.,
		ACB, Jaipur (Rural)
For State	:	Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

11/03/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition with the prayer that order dated 08.05.2017, by which prosecution sanction has been granted only against the petitioner for the offences Under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1)d, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the aid of Section 120-B IPC be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to decide the representation submitted by the applicant after considering the material on record.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that no demand was raised by the petitioner. As per the transcript, petitioner’s presence was only shown with one Mahipal-LDC. It is also contended that prosecution sanction has been refused against Gyan Chand Jajoria and Mahipal. Petitioner’s case is better than

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLW-384/2018]

¶17

that of Mahipal Singh to whom the amount was paid and from whom the amount was recovered. It is contended that the petitioner has been made accused with the aid of Section 120-B IPC and since prosecution sanction has been refused against Gyan Chand Jajoria and Mahipal, petitioner cannot be prosecuted with the aid of Section 120-B IPC.

¶18

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now restricting his prayer for considering the representation filed by the petitioner after refusal of prosecution sanction of the other co-accused. 4. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor and Unit Incharge, Addl. S.P. that charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused but prosecution sanction was refused for Gyan Chand Jajoria and Mahipal Singh. 5. My attention has been drawn to the transcript, wherein presence of petitioner and his voice has also been recorded. Petitioner who is the Vice-chairman has ensured the complainant that his work would be done. He even assured the complainant that if the Chairman creates some hurdle, he would return the money. He has also stated that he has received Rs.5000/- till date.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Investigation Agency has found the case made out against the petitioner as well as against co-accused, merely because prosecution sanction has been refused for other co-accused, there being specific transcript wherein the petitioner’s presence and demand is established, Authorities cannot be directed to reconsider the question of grant of sanction as there was enough material to proceed against the petitioner. As to what charge is to

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLW-384/2018]

¶23

be framed is to be seen by the trial Court, hence even if sanction has been given with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, the same cannot be said to be bad in law.

¶24

No ground is made out for entertaining the writ petition and in facts of the case, no directions can be given to the Authorities to reconsider the prosecution sanction.

¶25

Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.

¶27

Arti/50

Paramveer Singh v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramveer Singh v. State of Raj and Anr.

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 S/O Sadhuram, by Caste Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Balu Singh S/O Uday Singh B/C Sondhya Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rodulal S/O Gokul Prasad B/C Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Usha Bhati Vs Beawar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Prabhunarayan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Savita Sharma W/O Shri Preetam Kumar D/O Shri Vaidhya Shambhu Dayal Sharma Vs Preetam Kumar S/O Shri Jugalkishore