AJAY KUMAR TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code seeks quashing of the criminal proceeding arising from FIR No. 51/2001 dated 1/10/2001 U/s. 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered with the anti-corruption wing of the Delhi Police, and pending before the special Judge, Delhi. Before delving on the contentions of the parties it would be relevant to refer to the conspectus of facts of the instant case, which is reproduced below:

(2.) THE complainant Sh. Surinder Singh, a constable with the Delhi Police applied for a water connection on 28/01/2000 in the name of his wife Smt. Sheela devi in the premises bearing no. 432-A, Gali No. 2, Village Mandoli, Delhi. On 22/08/2000 the file of the complainant was cleared by the Assistant Engineer. It was alleged that Sh. Ashok Kumar, clerk sent the file to the petitioner in April 2001 after holding it back for 3-4 months. Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi the petitioner herein, a Junior Engineer with Delhi Jal Board was given charge of ward no. 85, village Mandoli while he was posted at Nandnagri, Shahdara Office in November 2000. On 1/10/2001 the complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption branch complaining that the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs. 2,000/- for clearing the file with the condition that initially Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid and remaining Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid after the clearance of file. Trap was laid and as per the case of prosecution the petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- and an FIR No. 51/2001 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed against him. On 10/10/2001, the Executive engineer (W) SHD-I issued a note that the petitioner was forcefully trapped. In january 2002 the petitioner was served with the Articles of Charges for the departmental Proceedings. On 19/09/2002 Charge sheet in the criminal case was filed. On 24/1/2004 charges were framed by the Special Judge and on 20/3/2006 the Enquiry Officer, Sh. Arun Kumar made his report exonerating the petitioner in the Departmental Proceedings. However, copy of the said report was not given to the petitioner, therefore, in September 2006, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act and then a copy of the said report was obtained. The principal contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings on same very charges by a detailed speaking order, therefore, the entire criminal proceeding in FIR No. 51/2001 dated 1/10/2001 U/s. 7/13 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 registered with the anti-corruption wing of the Delhi police, need to be quashed. The counsel contended that the law laid down by the hon"ble Apex Court in P. S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar " 1996 SCC (Crl.) 897; V. K. Bhutiani vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Crl. Rev. No. 945/203 decided on 20/04/2005 and in Sukhi Lal vs. Union of India " 131 (2006) DLT 12 squarely covers the present case. The counsel urged that since on the same set of facts, allegations and charges petitioner has been exonerated after the full-fledged departmental enquiry was held against him, therefore, it is quite unlikely that the same charges could be proved, by the prosecution in criminal proceedings requiring much stringent standard of proofs. The counsel finally submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings on same charges which formed basis for the departmental proceeding and where the petitioner has been given a clean chit, would be futile exercise and gross abuse of the process of court and thus, the same should be quashed.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP refuted the said contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and contended that merely because the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings it cannot be said that it is quite unlikely that the same charges could not be proved in criminal proceedings. The counsel urged that the present petition filed by the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court and the same should be dismissed.