Gopal Krishan Vyas - (1.) IN this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C, the petitioner has made the following prayer : "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed F.I.R. No.132/08 dated 09.06.08 police station Anti Corruption Bureau, C.P.S. Jaipur may kindly be quashed."
(2.) THE above FIR for which the prayer has been made for quashing the same, was filed against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 467,468, 471, 477(A) and 120B, I.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is elected Sarpanch and, in the said FIR, certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for committing forgery and misappropriation of money. THE said FIR, filed against the petitioner, runs as follows : (Matter in Hindi not produced) Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that the above FIR is totally false and is a consequence of political pressure and aimed at maligning the petitioner's prestige. In the petition, following grounds have been taken by the petitioner : "A. That as stated in the facts that a technical committee headed by the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Zila Parishad, Pali and having members viz., two Junior Engineers and Junior Accountant, a report was given by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali to the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Pali on 18-11-08. It is stated that on 14-10-08 the committee inspected all the places in the presence of the representative from the A.C.B. and found that in the works there is no loss to the State. Meaning thereby the allegation against the petitioner that the materials were supplied by a fake company and the petitioner misappropriated the money is totally false. As far as R.S.T. and C.S.T. Numbers are concerned, that is not necessary to get the supply from those shops or the suppliers who were having R.S.R., C.S.T. Numbers as far as Panchayat works are concerned. It is relevant to mention here that under the Panchayat Samiti Rohat there are 23 gram Panchayats and in all those 23 gram Panchayats the supply of the materials were supplied by the local supplier and there is no R.S.T., C.S.T. Number available to them. This shows that there is no necessity of R.S.T., C.S.T. Number. It is further stated in the meeting of the Sarpanch and Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Rohat dated 29-10-09 that when tenders are floated and nobody appear then construction work including the supply is to be conducted on the basis of BSR rates. Meaning thereby in giving work on BSR rates there is no irregularity. The letter dated 29-10-09 and the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer are produced herewith the application. B. That as per the Rural Works Directory 2004 which is issued by the Government of Rajasthan, it is stated in the para 6(i) that rates are to be fixed as per the local situation that's why all those materials which are to be supplied to the Panchayat are supplied by the local agencies. It is not only in the petitioner's Panchayat but in all other Panchayats also. Another allegation was made against the petitioner that tender of transportation of goods was given to Umaid Singh who is brother of the petitioner. It is true that tender was given to Umaid Singh but Umaid Singh's tender was lowest and Umaid Singh being the brother of the petitioner cannot be denied because his tender was lowest. There is no allegation that he did not supply the materials. Because his tender was only for the transportation and he transported the goods and as per rules the tender was given to him and payment was made. This false allegation was made against the petitioner just to harass and tarnish the image of the petitioner. As stated in the preceding para that there were 12 works and among those 12 works, two works are of construction of common toilets at Dabar ka Math and Aanganwari Dudia. It is prerogative of the Panchayat to choose the place of construction common toilets in the village. These toilets were constructed after taking a resolution of the Panchayat and this does not come into category of any irregularity. This amount was spent from "Sampurna Swachhata Karyakram" project and that is in all over Pali district by the order of the District Collector and toilets were constructed for the kids and pregnant women who come to visit Aanganwari Dabar and Aanganwari Dudiya. As far as toilets constructed near Math are concerned, that are the common toilets which is constructed on the public place for the benefit of entire village especially near the Math. This how can be said as irregularity on the part of the petitioner and what offence has been committed if the Panchayat has passed the resolution for construction of the common toilets. C. That as stated earlier that in the technical report the technical committee found that that was no loss to the State in those construction works. Even then the allegations were made against the petitioner that few persons did not work on the site and the payments were taken by some other persons. How this allegation is proved when the entire work is satisfactory. As far as payment is concerned the payment is made half in cash and half in the form of wheat. Wheat is given by the Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti and as per the record the Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti, the wheat was given to all those persons whose names were mentioned in the muster-rolls. Meaning thereby all false allegations have been made. No case is made out by bare perusal of the F.I.R. and even in the investigation. Hence, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set aside." While referring to the above grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.S. Kothari v. State of Rajasthan & Another1 and another judgment in Gyanesh Kothari v. State of Rajasthan.2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that not only FIR but subsequent investigation can be quashed as per the ratio drawn in the said judgments delivered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and, so also, perused the FIR as well as judgments cited by him. First of all, it is required to be observed that facts of this case are altogether different than the facts of the cited cases, upon which, the reported judgments were delivered. It is also settled principle of law that there cannot be a straight jacket formula for deciding each and every petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. The parameter laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 supp. (1) SCC 335 the apex Court has laid down guidelines in which inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in the aforesaid judgment as follows : 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court to otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other ma- terials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
(3.) RECENTLY, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. conferred upon the High Court has to be exercised with care and caution and only where such exercise of jurisdiction is justified by the test laid down in the provision itself, then only the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. may be exercised. The said verdict has been given by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam & Others v. M.K. Mohan Krishanamachari & Another, (2009) 10 SCC 488. In the said judgment, in para 29 and 32, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows : "29. It was observed by this Court on more than one occasion, that even in public interest litigation proceedings, appropriate directions may be issued and the purpose in issuing such directions is essentially to ensure performance of statutory duty by the investigating agency. The duty of the court in such proceedings is to ensure that the agencies do their duties in compliance with law. The inherent power of the High Court is saved to interfere with the proceedings pending before a criminal court if such interference is required to secure the ends of justice or where the continuance of the proceedings before a court amounts to abuse of the process of court. Such a power under Section 482 of the Code is always available to the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal court. 32. It is not necessary that every investigation should result in arrest, seizure of the property and ultimately in filing of the charge-sheet. The police, in exercise of its statutory power coupled with duty, upon investigation of a case, may find that a case is made out requiring it to file charge-sheet or may find that no case as such is made out. It needs no reiteration that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code conferred on the High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in the provision itself." In my opinion, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR require thorough investigation because case of petitioner does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in the guidelines given by the Hon'ble apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR, on their face value, require thorough investigation because the petitioner was public representative and it was expected from him to act in accordance with law because in the democracy public representatives are responsible towards the public and they cannot be permitted to act contrary to law, so also, they cannot be permitted to commit any irregularity or illegality. In this view of the matter, while following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam & Others v. M.K. Mohan Krishanamachari & Another (supra), so also, while applying the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), I am of the opinion that there is no force in this petition for quashing the FIR. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are altogether different than the facts of this case, so also, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, interference under Section 482, Cr .P.C. for quashing the FIR is required to be made in rarest of rare cases where, upon perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out. ;