ANIL KUMAR DHARENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the present petition, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a challenge is raised against the order dtd. 18/9/2023, passed by the Court of Special Judge-Prevention of Corruption Act No. 2, Jaipur Metro II in F.I.R. No. 191/2023 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner as well as the co-accused for the offences under Sec. 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Moreover, vide order impugned dtd. 18/9/2023, directions have also been issued to the Director General, Anti-Corruption for conducting further investigation in the alleged offence by an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police or higher, for determining the role of the public servants of RPSC or any other institution.

(2.) Prior to penning down the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to take a brief note of the factual matrix of the instant matter, crucial for the fair analysis of the lis at hand. The concise facts, are noted herein-under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, whilst being aggrieved of the order impugned dtd. 18/9/2023, has submitted that the same was passed on an application preferred under Ss. 190, 156 and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Hardeep Singh Sunderia (Advocate), who is not a complainant in the case. Therefore, he had no locus standi to file the said application in the matter and resultantly, the learned Special Judge has committed grave illegality in entertaining and deciding the application preferred by Mr. Hardeep Singh Sunderia. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the sole complainant in the instant proceedings was Mr. Sunder Singh only, as is evident from his signatures on all relevant documents during the investigation conducted by the concerned authorities.