SINGHVI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the first information report No. 51/89 registered by the Anti Corruption Department on 29. 4. 89 which is pending for investigation. A prayer has also been made to direct the S. H. O. /investigating Officer of Anti Corruption Department not to take any further step in respect of the aforesaid first information report and that the respondents be restrained from granting sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner.
(2.) THE case set out by the petitioner is that he joined service of THE Government of Rajasthan as Junior Engineer on 20. 9. 65. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer by order dated, 12. 4. 78. In the year 1985 he was posted as Assistant Engineer at Kishangarh. During his tenure as Assistant Engineer at Kishangarh, the work of laying down the pipe lines in some part of the city of Kishangarh was undertaken in the months of February and March 1985. THE work was completed through daily wages workers vide Muster Rolls No. 5707 and 5708. Since the total amount for the aforesaid work exceeded the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Assistant Engineer, sanction was obtained from the higher authorities. According to the petitioner, the entire work was being done under the direct supervision of Junior Engineer. THE petitioner was only to check the progress report in accordance with the work already done at the site. Some persons made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Department in respect of the aforesaid work and the Anti Corruption Department, as usual, drew, a complaint against the petitioner as a whole for offences under sections 420, 467, 471 IPC read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A first information report No. 51/89 was registered by the Anti Corruption Department. THE investigation has been completed and the matter is pending before the Government for sanction of the prosecution of the petitioner and others. It is also the case of the petitioner that the complaint had been made by one Shri Prem Chand son of Ram Lal. Said Shri Prem Chand had no concern with the work and he had no knowledge about the alleged mis-deeds committed in doing of the work of laying down the pipe-lines. He subsequently submitted an affidavit about the fact that he was misled about filing of complaint. His affidavit dated, 26. 6. 89 has been filed alongwith the writ petition in order to show that the complaint filed by Shri Prem Chand was misconceived. THE petitioner made representations to the Chief Minister on 16. 1. 91 and other higher authorities, but, he has not received any reply from the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and other authorities of the government. THE petitioner's case is that the first information report registered by the Anti Corruption Department does not disclose that the petitioner has committed any offence and, notwithstanding that, the respondents are proceeding with hot-haste by falsely implicating the petitioner in the premises aforesaid. THE petitioner has made two prayers to which reference has been made herein above. Shri R. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a bare look at the first information report shows that no offence has been committed by the petitioner and, therefore, there can be no justification for the registration of the first information report against the petitioner and for taking any action against him. He argued that the petitioner has been put to unnecessary harassment by the registration of F. I. R. involving offences under sections 420,468 and 471 I. P. C. read with Sec. 5 (l) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri Rathore urged that neither of the offences specified in the first information report can be said to have been made out against the petitioner and, therefore, neither the Government has got any authority to grant sanction nor there is any justification to keep the first information report alive. Shri Rathore placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court is State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and others (1) and also on Madhav Rao Scindhia vs. Shambha ji Rao (2) and argued that if no offence is disclosed from the perusal of the first information report, the investigation must not allowed to proceed, because, such investigation will result in unnecessary harassment to a party. I have given my serious consideration to the submissions of Shri Rathore in the light of the facts which have been disclosed in the petition. At the very out set, it must be observed that so far the State Government has not granted sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the investigation made by the Anti Corruption Department. The State Government has not placed the petitioner under suspension and no disciplinary action has been initiated against him. I, therefore, do not find any merit and justification in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been put to harassment merely on account of registration of the first information report. The Government is entitled to consider the material which has been made available to it by the investigating agency and then to decide, as to whether sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for any of the offences specified in the first information report should or should not be granted. It is not possible to entertain the plea of the petitioner that the Government grants sanction for prosecution in a routine manner or as a matter of course, without application of mind. There is no basis for such arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Government is one which governs by rule of law and not by rule of thumb and, ordinarily, there is a presumption of regularity in the actions of the Government. There is also a presumption that the Government takes decision after application of mind. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the sweeping argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanction for the prosecution is merely a formality and will be granted as a matter of course. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has so far not suffered any injury much less a grave injury,which calls for interference by this Court at this stage of the proceedings. In State of Bihar and another vs. J. A. C. Saldanha and others, (3), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed : - "the High Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. In our opinion, the High Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amounting to a mandamus to close the case before the investigation is complete. We say no more. "
(3.) IN Saldanha's case (supra), the investigation was in progress when the High Court issued a mandamus which virtually resulted in closure of the case. Reversing the High Court's order their Lordships held that the High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the investigation process. In State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan and others (4) the Supreme Court observed that, the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and, in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations in that complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. The legal position has been again examined in State of Haryana vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal (5) and also in State of Bihar vs. P. P. Sharma In the last case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: - "quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal Court amounts to "killing a still born child". Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground that alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit on the guise of prima facie evidence to stand on accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial under Article 226 or 227 even before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. " ;