- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 35 dated 19.12.2005 registered under Section 13(1)(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act') at Police Station SVB Rohtak and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier respondent No.2-Dr.P.S.Mann had filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Department. The matter was duly inquired by the Department. Petitioner was found innocent vide report dated 14.5.2003 (Annexure P5). Thereafter, respondent No.2-Dr.P.S.Mann had lodged the FIR in question. The Sanctioning Authority, without considering the inquiry report during departmental proceedings, had granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide order dated 22.6.2006 (Annexure P7). Since the petitioner had been found innocent in the departmental proceedings, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bihar, 1996 4 SCT 214 wherein it was held as under:- "At the outset, we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings."
(3.) Learned counsel has further placed reliance on State of Karnataka vs. Ameer Jain, 2007 4 RCR(Cri) 375 wherein it was held as under:- "For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the material collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the Court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.";