JAY KUMAR NALVAYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the applicant who is a Sub-inspector in the Madhya Pradesh Police praying for the quash of the FIR dated 20.11.2019 registered as Crime No. 278/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 7-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act, 2018).

(2.) It is undisputed that the investigation is still in progress and the charge- sheet has not yet been filed. This is the second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The first M.Cr.C. bearing No. 53214/2019 was withdrawn by the applicant vide order dated 7.1.2020 on the ground that during the pendency of the petition, the police had added the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the law as advised. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The facts of the case against the applicant as revealed from the FIR registered against him which is Crime No. 278/2019, is that on 20.11.2019, the complainant of the case Mr. Brijmoham Keer gave a written complaint dated 18.11.2019, that he owns a tractor manufactured by Sonalika Company bearing No. MP-05-AH-9496 and a trolley. Three months before giving the complaint, the complainant from his own field had filled up sand in his tractor trolley and was headed towards Itarsi. The S.H.O. of Police Station-Rampur Gurra, the applicant herein, apprehended the tractor trolley of the complainant and seized the same and parked it at P.S. Rampur Gurra. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application before the Court at Itarsi for the release of the said vehicle on which the learned Court below passed an order directing the Police to release the said tractor on Supurdginama. The complainant has alleged that the order of the Court, notwithstanding, the applicants herein demanded Rs. 30,000/- for the release of the said tractor and trolley. He further states that the petitioner never contacted the complainant directly but would make a demand through a Dhaba owner by the name of Rajeev from Itarsi. The complainant further states that besides his own tractor the applicant had also seized the tractors of some relatives of his village, and parked them at P.S. Rampur Gurra. According to the complainant, the other persons whose tractors were also seized by the applicant had received similar demands from the accused No.2, Rajeev to release the said vehicle. He further states that he does not want to give the bribe amount of ' 30,000/- and that he would like to get the applicant apprehended red handed. Thereafter, the respondent has arranged the conversation between the complainant and the accused No.2, Rajeev and recorded the same in a digital voice recorder. The FIR also records the fact that in the said conversation the accused No.2 Rajeev, has asked for a bribe of Rs. 30,000/- on behalf of the applicant herein to release the tractor trolley of the complainant.