Court Refuses to Quash FIR, Citing Sufficient Prima Facie Evidence of Illegal Gratification
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR filed under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The case involves Jagdish Singh, a public servant accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification through a middleman. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur, emphasized the presence of sufficient prima facie material that establishes the commission of offences under the Act.
The FIR was registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarkshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, in 2022, accusing Jagdish Singh of demanding Rs. 20,000 as illegal gratification for providing assistance in a complaint filed by the complainant. The FIR detailed how Rs. 10,000 was accepted by a middleman, Rajulal Sharma, on behalf of the accused and subsequently recovered from him. The accused was also subjected to a phenolphthalein test, which returned positive, further corroborating the allegations.
The petitioner argued for the quashing of the FIR, claiming no work was pending with him and questioning the validity of the recorded telephone conversation as evidence. However, the court noted that the telephonic conversations and trap proceedings prima facie established the demand for illegal gratification. Justice Mathur highlighted that the inherent powers of the court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (analogous to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code) should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of cases.
The judgment referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, underscoring that FIRs can only be quashed when allegations do not disclose any offence. The court found that the FIR in this case clearly disclosed cognizable offences, and thus did not justify the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash it.
Justice Mathur further clarified that the argument regarding no pending work with the petitioner is not a valid ground for quashing the FIR, as the Prevention of Corruption Act criminalizes the demand for gratification irrespective of whether the public servant is in a position to perform the act. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the legitimacy of the ongoing investigation and the sufficiency of evidence at this stage.
This decision reinforces the stance that allegations of corruption involving public servants warrant thorough investigation and cannot be prematurely dismissed without substantial grounds.
Bottom line:-
Quashing of FIR under Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through a middleman, recovery of tainted money, and positive phenolphthalein test constitute sufficient material to establish prima facie offences under the Act - Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) to be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 Sections 7, 7-A, IPC Section 120-B, Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Jagdish Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892351
