MATHUR, J. - (1.) BY way of these two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek direction to quash the order dated 20. 10. 2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur taking cognizance against them for offence under Section 420, 468 & 471 I. P. C. At the relevant time the first petitioner Narendrapal Kotadia was posted as Executive Engineer, National High Way, Udaipur, second petitioner Pradeep Kumar Assistant Engineer and third petitioner Ashok Kumar as a J. En. In another petition Gumani Ram, Vinod Kumar and Mahendra Kumar are the persons belonging to M/s. G. R. Agarwal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that one Krishan Kumar Gupta a Contractor filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur on 2. 5. 2000 stating inter alia that in April, 1998 the Additional Chief Engineer P. W. D. , National High Way No. 8 invited tenders for constructions of the road. The tender of M/s. G. R. Agarwal for a sum of Rs. 77,14,699/- was accepted. As per the terms of the contract the Firm was to undertake the construction work as per the Censor Paver system. However, the company instead of Censor Paver System worked by a simple paver system. Thus, there was a violation of the terms of the tender and thereby earned a substantial amount of Rs. 23,00,000/ -. It is alleged that the officers of the Department in conspiracy with the Contractor deliberately passed bills with a view to grab the public money. The complaint was sent for investigation to the S. H. O. , Police Station Bichhiwada under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. After investigation police forwarded a final report. The complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate after following the procedure provided under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. by the impugned order has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 420, 468 & 471 I. P. C. It is contended by the learned counsel that the complaint is actuated with malafides inasmuch as the complainant is also a contractor and his tenders was not accepted. It is further submitted that the police after investigation forwarded a final report but the learned Magistrate has not dealt with the reasons given by the police. It is further submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to show that there was any conspiracy between the officers of the department and the contractor to grab public money. It is further argued that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioners in absence of sanction of the State Government under the provisions of Section 197 Cr. P. C. On careful consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The learned Magistrate while issuing process against the petitioner has not kept in view the salutory note given by the Apex Court in Paniben vs. State of Gujrat (1), to the effect that judicial process should not be an instrument of possession or needless harassment. The court observed, "at that stage the Court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. " The courts should be extremely careful in a case where complaint is filed by a private party complaining to an act of a public servant in discharge of his duty. Repeatedly caution has been given that the court must ensure discouragement of fraudulent, the doubtful and impolitic prosecution at the instance of a vindictive or a jealous private complainant. The Apex Court in P. Sirajuddin etc. vs. State of Madras etc. (2), observed that before a public servant, whatever is his status, is publicly charged with an act of dishonesty which amounts to serious misdemeanor and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable inquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The court apprehended such a prosecution may false incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department in general. Such a party should be relegated to the specialized department like vigilance or the Anti Corruption Department. Even when a complaint is received by the Anti Corruption Department against the public servant the F. I. R. is registered only after a preliminary enquiry. To register a case against a public servant simply on the basis of a private complaint may prove to be disastrous and such a situation should be avoided as far as possible. It is not obligatory on the court to proceed in accordance with the provision of Section 200 or 202 Cr. P. C. and to issue a process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. in such cases. The allegations of corruption should normally be investigated only by the specialized department like Vigilance or the Anti Corruption Department. In cases where police forwards a final report in cases dealing with the public servant, the courts are expected to deal with the reasons given by the police for forwarding a negative police report. The court should also insist for sanction by the government under the provisions of Section 197 Cr. P. C. or anywhere else where a protection has been provided to a public servant under the statute. I am at pains to observe that there has been gross abuse by certain vindictive litigant to pressurize and browbeat the public servant by invoking the provisions of Cr. P. C. In the instant case, the police after investigation has found no case against the petitioners and forwarded the final report. The learned Magistrate did not bother to look on to those reasons. The Apex Court in Sampat Singh vs. State of Haryana (3), has observed that when an investigation culminated into a final report as contemplated under Section 173 Cr. P. C. then the competent court enjoins a duty that it has authority sanctioned by law to scrupulously scrutinize the final report and the accompaniments by applying its judicial mind and take a decision either to accept or reject a final report. Following the said decision this Court in Abdul Rehman vs. State (4), has held as follows:- " It is consistent view of this Court that report as well as material attached to the report, the Magistrate has to consider and then arrive at its conclusion as to why he accepts or rejects the conclusion of the Investigation Officer and why he intends to take cognizance against the accused inspite of final report. "
(3.) ON overall consideration of the entire matter, I find that the complainant a competitive Contractor has abused the process in filing private complaint against petitioner. It is considered to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to prevent the abused of judicial process at the hands of frustrated and vindictive litigant, by quashing the proceedings. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur dated 20. 10. 2001 is set aside. The proceedings against the petitioners in both the cases in Cr. Case No. 355/2001 in the court of A. C. J. M. , Dungarpur stand quashed. .;