RAJENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Departmental inquiry and FIR/Criminal case based on same facts/incident - In every case, it cannot be said as a rule of thumb that exoneration in departmental enquiry on merits must result into setting aside of FIR. If it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the provision of the Act in the departmental inquiry, the continuance of trial of person concerned can be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) Draped in brevity, the relevant facts as pleaded are that the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Goutam was working as Inspector, CGST, Ujjain whereas other petitioner Ishaq Khan was working in the same department as Head Constable. It is averred in the petition that as per prosecution story, on 31/5/2016, complainant Vikas Sharma submitted a written complaint in the Lokayukta Office, Indore stating that he is Manager of LNR Global Trading Company, Sendhwa and a letter dated 27/5/2016 was issued by the Custom House to CGST office, Indore through fax served on 30/5/2016 for the purpose of conducting office verification of the complainant's office. In relation to this fax communication, complainant came to CGST office, Indore for the verification where he met Rajendra Kumar Goutam and in turn Goutam called other petitioner Ishaq Khan who told the complainant that said letter had not reached their office. As per prosecution story, the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Goutam told the complainant that he would require a taxi for travelling in order to conduct office verification and in addition, complainant will have to give him Rs.30,000/- for getting the verification done. Thereafter, the petitioner introduced the complainant to Superintendent of the said department Shri.R.K. Jain who also demanded a taxi and Rs.30,000/- for conducting the abovementioned verification. During this conversation, petitioner Ishak Khan was also standing there. The complainant desired that petitioners and co-accused persons should be caught red handed.

(3.) Acting upon the said written complaint dated 31/5/2016, a trap was conducted and Inspector S.P.S Raghav has handed over a recorder with memory card to the complainant for recording the demand of bribe by the accused persons. The complainant along with constable Kanchan Singh (shadow witness) went to the office where petitioners were working by keeping the voice recorder in "ON" mode secretly. The complainant met Shri R.K. Jain, Superintendent (co-accused) in the said office. During the conversation, complainant requested said Shri Jain to reduce the amount of bribe and complainant offered Rs.15,000/- for completion of said work. As per prosecution story, Shri. Jain agreed. After said conversation was recorded, voice recorder and memory card were submitted to Lokayukta Office, Indore. The shadow witness constable Kanchan Singh was standing in gallery while conversation was being recorded by the complainant. The complainant brought the recorded conversation along with Rs.8000/- to Inspector, Lokayukta, Indore. As per prosecution's case, the recorded conversation revealed that co- accused R.K. Jain has agreed that verification process will be conducted on receiving Rs.15,000/- as bribe. In turn, Inspector S.P.S Raghav asked to provide two gazetted officers as "panch witnesses". Letter dated 31/5/2016 was sent for this purpose and in turn, panch witnesses were made available.