Dismissed

Manish Panwar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2024CRLMP/572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR in a corruption case alleging procedural flaws in investigation and sanction. Court declined interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on self-serving affidavit, directing remedy via superior police officer or Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to seek remedy under Section 36 Cr.P.C. or file application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Competent Magistrate.

Manish Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33680]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 572/2024

¶4

Manish Panwar S/o Shri Multan Mal Panwar, Aged About 39 Years, Then Mining Foreman (Second) Department Of Mines And Geology Bhilwara (Rajasthan) Presently Junior Hydrogeologist, Office Of The Chief Engineer, Ground Water Department, New Power House, Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Joshi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶11

Order (Oral)

¶12

13/08/2024

¶13

Petitioner herein, seek quashing of an FIR No. 388/2015, lodged at P.S. CPS, ACB, Jaipur Police Chowki ACB, Bhilwara-II for the offences registered under Sections 3(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The entire emphasis in course of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is on the mode and manner of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer including mechanical approach adopted by him to seek prior sanction of the competent authority to prosecute the petitioner. He submits that copy of the sanction order granted to the I.O. received under

[2024:RJ-JD:33680]

[CRLMP-572/2024]

(2 of 2)

Right to Information Act reveals that there has been no application of mind whatsoever on his part.

¶20

Be that as it may, having heard the arguments, I am of the view that it is not for this Court to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. merely on the basis of self serving affidavit filed by the petitioner. Any interference at this stage may impead the further course of action to be adopted by the I.O. and / or in preparation of the chargesheet based on the outcome of the investigation.

¶21

In the premise, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek legal remedy, which may otherwise be available to him, if so advised including filing of a representation before a superior police officer under Section 36 Cr.P.C. and / or filing appropriate application before the Competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to seek appropriate directions, in case, any warranted.

¶22

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶23

11-Rmathur/-

¶24

Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No

Manish Panwar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Panwar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Godara @ Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajana Alias Rohini Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Sikaligar Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan