SOURABH GARG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 407/2021 lodged at the Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur for the offences under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).

(2.) Learned senior counsel Shri Shishodia assisted by Shri Abhijeet Sharma appearing for the accused petitioner through video conferencing vehemently and fervently urges that the registration of the impugned F.I.R. is absolutely illegal because no previous approval to launch the investigation was taken by the Investigating Officer from the appropriate Government as per the mandate of Sec. 17A of the Act. He further submits that registration of the impugned F.I.R. is also contrary to the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 as the impugned F.I.R. is nothing but a second F.I.R. as it has been registered on the basis of the material collected during investigation of the earlier F.I.R. No. 183/2021 lodged at the Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur. The parcel of facts involved in both the F.I.Rs. is so intrinsically interlinked that the impugned F.I.R. should not have been registered and the allegations levelled therein should have been investigated in the first F.I.R. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 159/2018 "Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr." pronounced on 7/4/2020 and craved acceptance of the petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He pointed out that during the course of investigation of the F.I.R. No. 183/2021, some mobile phones were seized and on an analysis of the conversations saved therein, further transactions regarding exchange of illegal gratifications came to light, which formed a distinct series of offending acts pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification punishable under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Act. Hence, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned F.I.R. is not a second F.I.R. on same facts and is rather a fresh F.I.R. in relation to acceptance of illegal gratification and there is no illegality in registration thereof.