CAJY FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is praying for quashment of the First Information Report No. 6/2014 dated 6/03/2014 registered by the Officer in charge of Anti-Corruption Bureau, North Goa District, under the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint lodged on 18/12/2013 by respondent No. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons who are members of Colva Village Panchayat in connivance with Secretary of Colva Village Panchayat hatched a criminal conspiracy with malafide intention while holding office as public servants and issued the NOC/licenses to garages/illegal shed in UBI's Pride Apartment and facilitated the encroachment of public access in the property bearing survey No. 36/5C of village Colva so as to provide pecuniary benefits to Mr. Xavier Fernandes by overlooking the complaints of the residents of UBI's Pride apartment and the locals. The complainant claims to be an Social Activist and also a member of the Common Wealth Human Rights Organization, New Delhi. The substance of allegations in the complaint as recorded in complaint is reproduced as below:

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner inviting our attention to the allegations levelled in the complaint contends that on bare perusal of the complaint no offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is disclosed. The offence alleged against the petitioner, who is one of the members of Village Panchayat is under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) read as under:

(3.) What is alleged in the complaint is that one Mr. Xavier Fernandes, Proprietor of 'Portofino' Bar and Restaurant has connived with some Panch Members of the Village Panchayat of Colva and fabricated documents and produced before the Panchayat Body and managed to get NOC to run the Portofino Bar and Restaurant. It is alleged that there is a criminal nexus/broad conspiracy between the Panchayat Body of Colva, the Excise Department, the Electricity Department, the Health Officials, etc. all working hand-in-gloves with each other. The allegations contained in the complaint are quite general in nature and do not specify the specific acts allegedly committed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988 are not attracted. The requirements to attract Section 13(1)(d), is that the accused shall by corrupt or illegal means, obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtain for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. The phrase 'valuable thing' refers to any thing or moveable property, whereas pecuniary advantage refers to monetary benefits. On bare perusal of the complaint, it does not disclose that the petitioner has in any other way for himself or for any other person secured any available thing or pecuniary advantage. The acts allegedly committed by petitioner do not attract provisions of Section 13(1)(d). As such, the FIR registered alleging commission of offence under Section 13(1)(d) against petitioner deserves to be quashed. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335The Supreme Court in para 102 has laid down the principles of law, for exercise of inherent powers for quashing of the FIR. Para 102 reads thus: