ANIL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defects pointed out by the office are overruled. Heard, learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, on the very same allegations, earlier the complainant had filed a complaint to the DG, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. The said complaint was thoroughly inquired into by way of preliminary inquiry and the report thereupon was given on 3.5.2010 that prima facie, there was no irregularity in the action of the officers of the RFC with regard to the unit of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant Ratan Lal filed various writ petitions in the same matter before this Court and challenges were taken up right till the Apex Court. The details of the litigation's have been given at Pages Nos. 5 to 8 of this petition. Counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter Ratan Lal Darda filed another writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 226/2010, in which also, in relation to the very same allegations, prayer has been made to have the matter investigated. Another prayer has been made that the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau are not proceeding with the complaint of the petitioners in the correct perspective. In the said writ petition, the reply of the Anti Corruption Bureau has been received in which the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau have denied acting in a dilatory manner. Thereafter, the said complaint has already culminated into a report that no prima facie irregularity is disclosed from the allegations of the complainant. On the basis of the very same allegations, the complainant has now preferred a complaint before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases which has been forwarded to the Additional S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.

(2.) Suffice it to say that all the inquiries/litigation's prior to complaint in issue have resulted in favour of the petitioner but as on present, there is no order or proceeding by which the petitioner can be said to be aggrieved. In this view of the matter, while disposing of this petition, it is hereby directed that when the process on the complaint filed by respondent Ratan Lal is take up by the Officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau, it is expected that they shall keep in mind the fate of the earlier litigation's/preliminary inquiry conducted by them in relation to the very same allegations. If at all, after consideration of the material, F.I.R. is still registered against the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same by way of proper petition.

(3.) With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. The stay petition also stands disposed.