HARI SHANKER SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 482 r/w 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner with the prayer for quashing of impugned F.I.R. No. 526/2013 dt. 7/12/2013 registered at Police Station, Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is further prayed that the impugned order dtd. 2/6/2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 2, Jaipur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 42/2015, whereby, while rejecting the application filed by petitioner under Ss. 227 and 239 r/w Sec. 245 of Cr.P.C., cognizance had been taken under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner that the registration of impugned F.I.R. against sixty-two named persons amounts to an abuse of process of the law, as no allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner and he was not even named as an accused in the said F.I.R. Counsel has further submitted that the charge-sheet dtd. 26/2/2014 was filed without obtaining sanction against the petitioner. The case of petitioner was put up for grant of sanction before Competent Authority and the said Authority, had refused to grant sanction vide its order dtd. 21/4/2014 (Annexure-3). The order of refusing sanction (Annexure-3) by Competent Authority was again examined and approved by the Joint Secretary (Police) vide its letter dtd. 1/9/2014 (Annexure-4). Further, the case of petitioner was put up before Commissioner, Chief Vigilance, who also approved for refusal of sanction, vide its order dtd. 23/6/2014 (Annexure-5).

(3.) Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has contended that the learned Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by petitioner under Ss. 227 and 239 r/w Sec. 245 of Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance for offences under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act of 1988, vide its order dtd. 2/6/2016 (Annexure-6) against the petitioner, without considering the material available on record, which amounts to an abuse of process of law. It was argued before the learned Trial Court that there is no evidence against the petitioner, in these circumstances, sanction was not granted against the petitioner. Counsel has further contended that the learned Trial Court had observed that no sanction is required under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act, 1988, as these two provisions of the Act, 1988 are not related to the public servant. The word "whoever" used in these Ss. , clearly indicates that the commission of offence is related to other person and not to the public servant. Thus, in these circumstances, taking cognizance against the petitioner under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act, 1988, amounts to an abuse of process of law. Lastly, Counsel has prayed that the present petition be accepted and impugned F.I.R. be quashed and set aside. The order dtd. 2/6/2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 2, Jaipur, whereby, while rejecting the application filed by petitioner under Ss. 227 and 239 r/w Sec. 245 of Cr.P.C. and cognizance taken under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner, be also quashed and set aside.