R N RAJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/original accused No, 1, being aggrieved by the order dated 10th October, 1994 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur in C. R. No. 300 of 1993 against the petitioner and three others. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge, Solapur, rejected the prayer made by the investigating agency to the grant of A Summary and further directed the Investigating Officer to obtain necessary sanction from the competent authority for filing charge-sheet against the petitioner/accused. The learned Special Judge accordingly directed the Investigating Officer to take necessary steps in that behalf. The petitioner is particularly aggrieved by that part of the impugned order, whereby, after rejecting grant of A Summary, the Special Judge directed the Investigating Officer to obtain necessary sanction from the competent authority for filing charge-sheet against the accused, directing thereby to take necessary steps in that behalf.

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, few facts are required to be stated, which are as follows: the petitioner R. N. Raje is original accused No. 1 in C. R. No. 300 of 1995 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (A. C. B.), Solapur under sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At the relevant time, he was attached to the Vijapur Naka Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police. Accused No. 2 Shivshankar N. Chendke, P. C. No. 1345 was also attached to the same Police Station, while accused No. 3 Raghunath D. Survase is a pan shop owner.

(3.) THE petitioner has stated in his petition that one Nagnath Mallikarjun Kalburgi, a resident of Kamala Nagar, Solapur, was a history sheeter and was involved in several cases with various police stations of Solapur. According to the petitioner, on 26th November, 1993, the said Kalburgi approached Dy. S. P. Shri B. R. Chavan of A. C. B. , Solapur, and complained that on 25th November, 1993, he learnt that a complaint against him was lodged at the Audyogik Vasahat Police Chowki, and that, investigation in that respect was entrusted to the petitioner R. N. Raje. According to the petitioner, the said Kalburgi is alleged to have met the petitioner, and pleaded with him not to take any action against him. He allegedly also told him to hush up the complaint and the petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 5,000/- for hushing up the said complaint, but later on, agreed to accept Rs. 2,000/ -. The said Kalburgi, thereafter, allegedly gave Rs. 200/- to accused No. 2 Chendke, and promised to pay Rs. 1,800/- on the next day. Thereafter, he went to the said Dy. S. P. Chavan of A. C. B. and lodged his complaint. Chavan then arranged a trap and along with Kalburgi and panchas came to the Police Chowki. It was further alleged that at the police chowki , the petitioner Raje and the said Chendke allegedly demanded the money, and Chendke and the said Kalburgi went to accused No. 3, who was a pan shop owner. Kalburgi handed over a sum of Rs. 1,800/- to him. The police then apprehended all the three accused and F. I. R. came to be filed vide C. R. No. 300 of 1993. Panchnama was conducted and after investigation in the case, A. C. B. submitted report to the learned Special Judge, Solapur, stating therein, that in view of the fact that the said Kalburgi did not take panch from the police chowki till he handed over money to the accused No. 3, there was no independent evidence available to the police, except the fact that the said amount of Rs. 1,800/- was found with the pan shop owner, who was made accused No. 3. They, therefore, applied for A Summary in the matter. The learned Special Judge, however, by his letter dated 10th October, 1994, addressed to Dy. S. P. , A. C. B. , Solapur, disagreed with the police report and rejected the prayer of the police for A summary. The learned Special Judge further directed the A. C. B. to obtain necessary sanction from the competent authority for filing charge-sheet against the accused. It is against this part of the order that the present petitioner/accused No. 1 has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings in C. R. No. 300 of 1993, initiated by A. C. B. , Solapur. It is submitted by Mr. Mundargi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner/accused No. 1 Raje that the learned Special Judge was well within his rights in rejecting the prayer of grant of A Summary, if he did not agree with the said Report submitted by police. But that, directing the Investigating Officer to obtain necessary sanction from the competent authority for filing charge-sheet against the accused, and directing the police to take necessary steps in this behalf, was absolutely improper. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 117 (Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra ).