KAVINDRA KIYAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner vide present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashment of FIR No.282/2019 dated 24.11.2019 registered against the petitioner including 15 other persons by Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended vide Amendment Act No.16 of 2018) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Relevant facts borne out from the FIR are that the Lokayukt Organization received a complaint from one Shri Piyush Jain on 12.03.2015 and Shri Bharat Bamne on 06.07.2015, both residents of Indore, alleging large scale corruption by the officials of the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department and various Collectors posted at Ujjain in connivance with the Directors of a private aviation company viz., Yash Air Limited in respect of maintenance, use and development of airstrip at Datana, Ujjain. These complaints were respectively registered as 4511/C/14 and 1153/C/15 and further led to preliminary enquiry vide P.E. No.120/15 registered on 22.07.2015. The preliminary enquiry report is the genesis for registration of impugned FIR.

(3.) Taking us through the FIR and relying on the documents obtained through RTI, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated. It is urged that the agreement which is the basis for the allegations levelled against the petitioner was entered into between M/s Yash Air Limited and the Aviation Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on 31.08.2006 for maintenance, use and development of airstrip in question, was for a period of 7 years and later, extended for 3 years and the allegation with regard to non-collection of lease rent which led to alleged loss to the Government, is for the period till 2013, whereas, the petitioner was posted as Collector, Ujjain from 07.08.2014 till 27.08.2016. It is urged that the allegations are not supported by any cogent material evidence as would prima facie bring home the guilt of the petitioner. It is urged that the petitioner is a decorated officer dedicated to his service and the facts mentioned in the FIR are entirely fabricated, have no footing in any material evidence and are contrary to the facts borne out from the documents obtained from the department through RTI. It is also urged that the lodging of FIR against the petitioner, who is a Govt. servant, is contrary to and is prohibited by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended vide Amendment Act No.16 of 2018) [for brevity "1988 Act"]. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 and Yashwant Sinha vs CBI (2020) 2 SCC 338 to bring home the submissions.