SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through, instant petition filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.01 of 2019, dtd. 6/2/2019, under Sec. 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short "Act"), registered at Police Station SV & ACB, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

(2.) Quintessential facts, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Sh. Vijay Kumar, who runs an academy/coaching centre for candidates willing to join the Army and other paramilitary forces, alleging therein that two days back, he had received telephonic calls from mobile No.9050669912 and 9541466777 from some unknown person, claiming therein that he could get the persons, who had taken coaching from him, selected in the Army, as he had links therein. Complainant alleged that on 27/1/2019, written examination was conducted for recruitment in the Army and the person, who had given him telephonic calls, assured him that in case any candidate desirous of getting selected pay Rs.2,00, 000.00, he would get him selected. He also alleged that afore person also asked him to come and meet him at Una. Complainant, who had recorded his telephonic conversation ,came to Una and reported the matter to the police, whereafter a trap was laid and petitioner herein was caught red- handed while accepting bribe i.e cheque of Rs.2, 40,000.00 and Rs.10,000.00 in cash. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR on the ground that no case much less under Sec. 7 A of the Act is made out against him and as such, FIR as well as consequential proceedings sought to be quashed deserve to be quashed at the very threshold.

(3.) Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse Sec. 7-A of the Act, vehemently argued that no case, much less under aforesaid provision of law, is made out against the petitioner because nothing has emerged during investigation that petitioner herein ever attempted to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. He submitted that though no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein had ever assured the respondent/complainant that in case any candidate desirous of getting selection in Army pays a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 he would get him selected, but even if aforesaid claim of the complainant is presumed to be correct, no case under Sec. 7-A of the Act could have been registered against the petitioner because no evidence, worth credence, has been collected on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein had any link with the public servant responsible for Army recruitment and, he, in furtherance of his assurance given to complainant, ever contacted any public servant or attempted to induce him to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since basic ingredients of Sec. 7-A of the Act are totally missing, case of the prosecution is bound to fail in all probabilities and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequential proceedings, deserves to be allowed because, in case the FIR is not quashed, petitioner would be unnecessarily put to the ordeal of a protected trial, which is otherwise bound to fail.