Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1781 of 2015 Indra Deo Prasad, son of late Ishwar Dayal, resident of Village Tilaiya, P.O. Maheshra, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag ... ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance ... ... ... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate th Dated, 26 August, 2016 By Court Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report as well as the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2012 and also the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No.01 of 2012 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.
2. The factual score, as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of informant Anil Prasad Barnwal, in short, is that his daughter who is a student of C.T. Engineering College, Jalandhar got a scholarship of Rs.60,000/ for her study but the petitioner demanded Rs.20,000/ as commission for getting the scholarship sanctioned and finally the petitioner after persuasion agreed to accept Rs.10,000/ but as the informant was not ready to succumb to the said illegal demand of gratification, reported the matter to the S.P., Vigilance. Whereafter, one Inspector was directed to make a preliminary inquiry into the allegation made by the informant. After inquiry, the allegation was found to be prima facie correct whereafter a trap team was constituted and after completing all the formalities, the trap team caught the petitioner red handed accepting Rs.10,000/ from the informant. The tainted money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner in presence of two independent witnesses and when both the hands of the petitioner 2 were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the said solution turned into pink colour showing the complicity of this petitioner. 3. On the basis of the said information, Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 of 2012 was instituted under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and after investigation the police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner. Accordingly, the court concerned after going through the F.I.R., the chargesheet, the case diary and the sanction order besides other materials available on record, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this quashing application.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing for the petitioner assailing the order taking cognizance visavis the continuation of the criminal prosecution as bad in law and perverse, seriously contended that the court below without applying its judicial mind, passed the order taking cognizance and no cogent reason has been assigned for proceeding in this case. It was also submitted that it is a settled principle that the court while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the facts and material before him but the court below without considering the circular issued by the Government of Jharkhand whereby the application filed by eligible candidate for grant of sanction of scholarship who are studying outside the State, has to be processed and sanctioned by the State Welfare Department and the District Welfare Department where the petitioner was working, was not competent either to process the applications or grant of sanction and as such the continuation of the criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. Shailesh appearing for A.C.B. (Vigilance) relying upon the counter affidavit filed at the instance of the Vigilance supported the order taking cognizance and contended that from mere perusal of the said order, it would appear that the court has looked into all the relevant 3 documents, F.I.R., the case diary and other materials available on record. It was also submitted that at this initial stage roving and meticulous examination of evidence on record is impermissible and there is no scope for interference by this Court in view of the settled proposition of law. 6. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the learned counsels, a reference of the case Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora and others; 2013(10) SCC 581 is necessary wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 31 has held as follows: “30. It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn child”, and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some sub stance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. More so, the chargesheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216 CrPC. So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial court at a later stage.” 31. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned complaint or orders impugned herein. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.”
7. From bare perusal of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that at this stage neither the court can embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegation in the complaint 4 are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. It is no doubt that the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment and the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising the jurisdiction. However, it is equally true that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceeding, the court should not ‘kill a stillborn child’. At a very initial stage, the court has only to see the strong prima facie evidence available on record as collected by the Investigation Officer during investigation. 8. On perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it appears that there was a demand of illegal gratification, acceptance of the said illegal amount and subsequently recovery of the amount from possession of the petitioner. So all the three ingredients primarily responsible for constituting offence under the provisions of Prevention Act are there and the witnesses examined during investigation including the members of trap team have all supported the prosecution case. The presumption of guilt of the accused, which is to be drawn at the very threshold of the proceeding, is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie material whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. In a case Rajiv Thapar & Ors. V. Madan Lal Kapoor; (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the discharge petition of the accused held in Paragraph 28 that this is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution, without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. 9. I have gone through the materials available on record, order taking cognizance and I find that prima facie there appears to 5 be sufficient material on record or grave suspicion to show the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent payment and recovery. Obviously, this is not the stage of evaluating the truthfulness or other otherwise of the allegations. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I donot find any plausible ground to interfere in the criminal proceeding pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi and the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2012 in connection with Special Case No.01 of 2012 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 of 2012.
11. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. (R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 26th August, 2016 Anit/N.A.F.R.