Dismissed

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramwaroop Ji Gurjar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2024CRLMP/4038/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC clubbed multiple petitions seeking quashing of an FIR regarding land fraud and forged documents. The court dismissed petitions, upholding the prosecution sanction order as reasonable and stating that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage, especially where offences involve cheating and forgery.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; authorities directed to proceed further in accordance with law without quashing the FIR or prosecution sanction.

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramwaroop Ji Gurjar, Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6157/2024

¶4

Neva Lal Son Of Shri Kajod, Resident Of Karondi, Bundi, District Bundi ( Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Jansi Lal Son Of Shri Ramdev Meena, Resident Of Devpura Sankhla, District Tonk (Raj). At Present Village Budhpura, Police Station Dabi, District Bundi (Raj).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1752/2023 Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Humla, R/o Civil Lines, Brijraj Colony, Nayapura Kota Rajasthan.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶15

Jansilal Meena S/o Ramdev Meena, R/o Budhpura, Dabi, Bundi Rajasthan.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4038/2023

¶18

Rajesh Gurjar S/o Ramwaroop Ji Gurjar, R/o Halka Patwari Dabi Tehsil Taleda Bundi Rajasthan.

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶22

Jansi Lal Meena S/o Ramdev Meena, R/o Budhpura, Dabi, Bundi Rajasthan.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 471/2024

¶25

Prithvi Singh S/o Shri Rai Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House No. B/154 Gate No. 6 Navjeevan Colony Bundi (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Jaipur.

¶32

Superintendent Of Police, Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶33

Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Bundi, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶34

Jansi Lal Meena S/o Ramdev Meena, R/o Budhpura, Dabi, Bundi (Raj).

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1101/2024

¶37

Prithvi Singh S/o Shri Rai Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House No. B-154 Gate No. 6 Navjeevan Colony Bundi (Raj.)

¶38

----Petitioner

¶39

Versus

¶40

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶41

District Collector (Land Record), Bundi

¶42

----Respondent

¶43

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Jagmohan Saxena with Mr. Dharmendra Pareek Mr. Vijay Singh for Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Dr. Mahesh Sharma with Ms. Harshita Sharma Mr. Tarun Kant Somani, RPS, CO, PS Talera, Bundi

¶44

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶45

Order

¶46

REPORTABLE

¶47

Reserved on : 25/09/2024 Pronounced on : 05/11/2024

¶48

For the sake of expediency, handiness and considering the

¶49

interwoven issues, the instant petitions were clubbed together and are hence decided en masse.

(3 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

BACKGROUND

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6157 of 2024 is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. seeking directions for quashing the entire criminal proceedings qua the accusedpetitioner; arising out of F.I.R. No. 044/2023 dated 20.02.2023 registered at Police Station Dabi, District Bundi, Rajasthan for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 166 of I.P.C. whereas S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1752 of 2023 is filed by accused-petitioner Rajesh Kumar under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions for quashing of F.I.R. (Supra) whereas S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4038 of 2023 is filed by accused-petitioner Rajesh Gurjar seeking directions for quashing of F.I.R. (Supra) whereas S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 471 of 2024 is filed assailing the matter(s) qua the impugned F.I.R. (Supra) and for safeguarding of the fundamental rights of the petitioner – Prithvi Singh, as enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶55

The germane facts for consideration of the instant bunch are that the complainant filed a criminal complaint dated 31.01.2023 against the accused-petitioners – Shri Rajesh Gurjar and Shri Rajesh Bheel before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Talera, District Bundi, with regard to an incident that took place on 09.11.2020 wherein, allegations of committing forgery and cheating were leveled. Subsequently, exercising its jurisdiction as per Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the concerned Police Station. Resultantly, the

(4 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

impugned F.I.R. came to be registered (Annexure-1 in SBCRLMP No. 6157/2024).

¶60

The primary reason for lodging the said F.I.R. was that the complainant is in possession of the said piece of land (measuring seven bighas ) since 05.10.2020 and the accused-petitioner along with the concerned patwari – Shri Rajesh Gurjar and ors. hatched a criminal conspiracy to change the credentials of the said land and amend the name of the complainant. Successively, accusedpetitioner filed an application dated 09.11.2020 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Taleda (hereinafter referred to as SDO) without impleading the complainant as a party. Thereafter, the accused-petitioners upon summoning the revenue records furnished forged and manipulated documents. After that the SDO passed orders for making modifications/alterations and giving the said land of the complainant to the accused-petitioners.

¶61

Notwithstanding anything mentioned insofar vide order dated 12.05.2022 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6979/2022 titled as Jansilal Vs. Sohanlal, considering that the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer passed the then impugned judgment dated 11.04.2022 without adverting to the fact that the Court of Additional Divisional Commissioner vide its order dated 22.01.2021, recorded finding that keeping objections of the respondents reserved on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 96 CPC, an interim protection is operative qua the said property. The relevant extract from the order dated 12.05.2022 is reproduced herein below:

(5 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

“Taking into consideration the contentions and the material on record, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the parties to maintain status quo qua revenue record as also physical status of the subject property, till further orders.”

¶66

For the sake of convenience the timeline of events is reproduced herein below:

¶67

Timeline of events

¶68

Date	Event
22.12.2017	Sale deed executed between Ratanlal and Nanda
05.10.2020	Sale deed executed between Nanda and jansilal (Complainant)
9.11.2020	Application under section 136 Land Revenue Act by Rajesh Kumar
07.01.2021	Tampered Mauka report prepared by patwari and furtherproduced in court
22.01.2021	SDO Order
19.03.2021	Appeal against the S.D.O order by jansilal before Div. Commissioner
23.07.2021	Complaint to Dist. Collector byTehsildar, Talera
19.09.2022	New mauka parcha prepared on order of DM and Tehsildar
20.02.2023	F.I.R
13.05.2024	Prosecution sanction against accused

¶69

SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE

¶70

PETITIONERS

¶71

Learned counsel representing the petitioners had averred that the registration of the impugned F.I.R. is ab initio void, as prior to the said F.I.R. a civil suit is already pending qua the same dispute. Moreover, from the said civil suit it can be inferred that the instant dispute pertains to civil jurisprudence and the impugned F.I.R. is made to be registered giving it a criminal flavor. It was further contended that the timeline of the instant dispute

(6 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

itself justifies the malevolent intentions of the complainant as the alleged incident occurred on 09.11.2020 for which a criminal complaint was made on 31.01.2023 and the F.I.R. came to be registered on 20.02.2023. Moreover, no reasonable justification is proffered for the aforementioned delay.

¶76

Further, when the matter was referred for attaining prosecution sanction, the same was granted without application of mind and appreciation of evidences hence is perverse of the provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

¶77

In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gurjarat reported in 1997 (7) SCC 622 , a circular published by the State Government of Orissa dated 15.05.2015 wherein criteria for grant of prosecution sanction is spelled out considering the dictum passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal – Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2013 , while placing reliance upon the aforecited judgments it was submitted that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not merely a formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought. Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which

(7 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution.

¶82

SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS

¶83

10. Per contra , learned counsel representing the complainant had stoutly opposed the contentions made by the counsel representing the petitioners and at the outset had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in CBI Vs. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 and had averred that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. (erstwhile Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) cannot conduct a mini trial at this stage.

¶84

Learned counsel had further submitted that the instant case is a paradigm of how public servants are misusing their powers, as in the matter in hand public authorities being hand-in-glove with the private individuals have altered and tampered the revenue records. Herein, the accused-petitioner with ulterior motives applied for modification/ alteration/ ratification of the land records/revenue records, the said application was entertained by the concerned Tehsildar, however, at a belated stage under undueinfluence or coercion or with malice intentions without impleading the complainant as a party, without considering the naksha mauka report and merely relying upon the statements tendered by accused-applicant, in an ex-parte manner altered the records. 12. Qua the contention made for the parallel proceedings i.e. civil petition and the instant F.I.R. it was elucidated that the civil proceedings are initiated with a prayer for restoration of status of the said property whereas the F.I.R. was lodged considering the

(8 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

manipulation, cheating, forgery and venality committed by the accused-petitioners. It was further submitted that the civil proceedings were initiated way back in the year 2022 however, due to the change in circumstances and considering the gravity of offence committed against the complainant, the instant F.I.R. was lodged.

¶89

Subsequently, it was averred that the incident herein involves active participation of the public authorities while exercising its official powers for whatsoever reasons. Hence, the contention qua prosecution sanction is not relevant. Moreover, in the matter in hand, the prosecution sanction dated 13.05.2024 was passed after due consideration of vital facts and circumstances of the instant dispute, scanning of the records and due application of mind. Howsoever, it is admitted that a prima facie observation was drawn as the definitive conclusion can only be attained upon culmination of trial.

¶90

In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel representing the complainant had placed reliance upon the ratio enunciated in Gopal Dass and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr. reported in 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 894, Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 , Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & anr. in SLP (Crl.) No. 1500/2024 , Omprakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2008 (3) Cri. CC 452, Center for Public Interest Litigation and anr. Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (8) SCC 202 and Shadakshri vs. State of Karnataka and anr. in Criminal Appeal No.

(9 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

256/2024. While placing reliance upon the aforementioned it was averred that no prosecution sanction is mandatory if the public servant is alleged to have adopted corrupt practices whilst tendering his official duties and that civil and criminal proceedings can run concomitantly if the dispute pertains to cheating, forgery and fraud being committed.

¶95

Lastly, reliance was placed upon the provisions and object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it was submitted that the sanction order cannot be quashed, especially when the same is passed after due consideration of vital factors and application of mind.

¶96

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

¶97

Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering the judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court at this juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts:16.1. That an F.I.R. bearing no. 44/2023 was lodged by the complainant – Jansi Lal against the accused-petitioners (Rajesh Gurjar – Patwari and Rajesh Bheel) alleging to be in possession of land bearing khasra no. 1898/492 (as per the report submitted by the Patwari).

¶98

16.2. That the complainant and the accused-petitioner have adjoining pieces of land.

¶99

16.3. That the primary dispute herein is that the accusedpetitioner filed an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, for alteration/modification in the revenue

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

(10 of 17)

records. The said application was allowed by the Court of SDO, Talera vide order dated 22.01.2021.

¶104

16.4. That without impleading the complainant as a party in an ex-parte manner the said revenue record was altered.

¶105

16.5. That the said order dated 22.01.2021 was assailed by the complainant before the appropriate authorities. Eventually in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6979/2022 an interim protection was made operative in favor of the complainant.

¶106

16.6. That in the instant petitions the sanction order dated 13.05.2024 is assailed. However, upon a perusal of the same it is deduced that the same is passed after due consideration of vital facts and circumstances of the instant dispute and is a reasonable speaking order.

¶107

16.7. That for restoration of the status and credentials of the said piece of land a civil suit is filed by the complainant which is subjudice before the Coordinate Bench of this Court and for the said forgery and cheating committed by the accused-petitioners against the complainant the complainant had lodged the instant F.I.R. and consequential criminal proceedings.

¶108

Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts of the instant matter, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petitions for the following reasons:

¶109

17.1. This Court is of the view that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments had opined that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./ Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,

¶110

the High Court is not supposed to conduct a mini trial. Therefore,

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

(11 of 17)

while placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in CBI Vs. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379; Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand (SLP Criminal Appeal No. 1500 of 2024) , Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana reported in (2023) 7 SCC 711; Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603 , this Court is of the opinion that ‘as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.

¶115

17.2. Even otherwise the prosecution sanction order dated 13.05.2024 is a reasonable, speaking order, wherein, the undersigning authority had categorically elucidated the rationale behind passing of the same. Hence, considering the prima facie facts, circumstances and the contents of the said order, there seems no palpable error in the same. The relevant extract from

¶116

the operative portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:

¶117

**mijksDr rF;ks ds vk/kkj ij vuql a /kku vf/kdkjh }kjk nkSjku a s vuql/kku mDr nksuks a a vkjksfir dkfeZdks a ds fo:) vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 465] 467] 468] 471] 192] 166@12 0 oh Hkk0n0l0 o /kkjk 3¼2½¼ a V ½ ,llh@,lVh ,DV es vijk/k izekf.kr a gksuk ekuk gSA

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

(12 of 17)

mDr Øe es vuql a /kku vf/kdjh }kjk izLrqr nLrkost] vuql a /kku a i=koyh dk ckn voyksdu vuql/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe”k a Z mijkUr] izdj.k es vkjksih dkfeZd 1] Jh jkts”k xqtZj rRdkyhu a gYdk iVokjh Mkoh o O;fDrxr :i ls lquk x;kA mDr izdj.k es a vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 465] 467] 468] 471] 192] 166@120 oh Hkk0n0l0 o /kkjk 3¼2½¼ a V ½ ,llh@,lVh ,DV d s vUrxZr vfHk;kstu pyk, tkus dk izFke n’V;k i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA izdj.k es vkjksih dkfeZdks a us yksdlsod ds inh; drZO;ks a ds a nkSjku mDr vijk/k fd;s tkus ls n.M izfdz;k lfgrk dh /kkjk a 197 ds vUrxZr vfHk;kstu Lohdrh nh tkuh gSA**

¶122

17.3. Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio enunciated in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar (Supra) wherein, it was unconditionally stated that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that allegations made, appears to be of civil nature. The relevant extract from the afore-cited dictum is reproduced herein below:

¶123

“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At t he in i tial stage

¶124

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

¶125

(13 of 17) [CRLMP-6157/2024] of i groun s h all not be int e rdicted.”

¶126

17.4. Withal, reliance can also be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Gopal Dass and ors. (Supra) wherein, it was categorically stated that if the offence is of fraud or cheating then civil proceedings have no bearing on the criminal proceedings in

¶127

any manner. The relevant extract from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein below:

¶128

“33. The afore-said observation finds strength for this Court from a judgment of the Apex Court consisting of Hon'ble three Judges Bench in "Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr vs. State (Delhi Admn.) &Anr." as has been discussed and held therein particularly vide para Nos. 9 & 11, which reads as under:-

"9.

Indi

putably

simultaneously. Cognizance in a criminal proceeding can be taken by the criminal court upon arriving at the satisfaction that there exists a prima facie case.

¶134

The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case one or the other proceedings would be stayed would depend upon

(14 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

several factors including the nature and the stage of the case.

¶139

11. Axiomatically, if judgment of a civil court is not binding on a criminal court, a judgment of a criminal court will certainly not be binding on a civil court. We have noticed hereinbefore that Section 43 of the Evidence Act categorically states that judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of the Act. No other provision of the Evidence Act or for that matter any other statute has been brought to our notice.

¶140

Another Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider a similar question in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Me e

¶141

nakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 wherein it was held:

¶142

24. There is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. Sub-section (1) of Section 340 CrPC contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341 provides for an appeal against an order directing filing of the complaint. The hearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is bound to take time. Section 343(2) confers a discretion upon a court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the

(15 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate fora which are time-consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure prescribed for filing a complaint by the court is such that it may not fructify in the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This important consideration dissuades us from accepting the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon clause (b)(ii)."

¶147

Relying inter alia on M.S. Sheriff (supra), it was furthermore held:

¶148

"32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil c st add t

(16 of 17)

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

The question yet again came up for consideration in P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu : AIR 2008 SC 1884 , wherein it was categorically held: "13. It is, however, wellsett of each c as "

¶153

17.5. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs. State of

¶154

U.P. reported in (1997) 5 SCC 326 :

¶155

“5. The question is: w

¶156

fun duties? It i s

¶157

not t

¶158

The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same transaction, as was believed by the learned judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.”

¶159

17.6. Additionally, as per the dictum enumerated in Omprakash

¶160

Singh (Supra) it can be deduced that once the sanction order is passed, the same cannot be quashed merely on the ground that it did not mention all the details of the evidence collected by the

(17 of 17)

[CRLMP-6157/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:40839]

Investigating Officer. Moreover, in the matter in hand the said order is passed only after analyzing the material records of the alleged offence, and a prima facie opinion of commission of corruption was formulated.

¶165

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

¶166

Albeit this Court has a miniscule jurisdiction under section 528 of B.N.S.S. to appreciate evidences, while adjudicated the instant matter material facts and circumstances were considered. Upon a perusal of the records and in précis of the aforementioned it can be noted that the prima facie allegations under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are leveled; the prosecution sanction order is passed after duly articulating the rationale behind the opinion formulated therein, hence, the same ought to be considered a reasonable and speaking order and the enduring issue of facts cannot be dealt by this Court.

¶167

In light of the above and considering the egregiousness of the allegation involved, this Court would prefer to err on side of caution and shall restrain itself from quashing the instant F.I.R. consequently, the concerned authorities are directed to proceed further, strictly in accordance with law.

¶168

In view of the aforementioned facts, observations and rule of precedents, the instant petitions being devoid of any merits stand dismissed. No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶169

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶170

ANIL SHARMA /35

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramwaroop Ji Gurjar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramwaroop Ji Gurjar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Babu Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jashoda Bai Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Nikee W/O Shri Deepak Kumar, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bijendra Singh Tanwar S/O Shri Prahalad Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prithvi Singh S/O Shri Rai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Humla, Vs State of Rajasthan