Smt. Lili Pushpalata Bek Widow Of Late Igresiyas Bek Aged About 53 Years R/o v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Anti Corruption Bureau
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19798-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1491 of 2025 Smt. Lili Pushpalata Bek Widow Of Late Igresiyas Bek Aged About 53 Years R/o Vijeta Complex, Quarter No. 13, Block- B New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Anti Corruption Bureau (E.O.W./a.C.B.), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Bhupendra Patel S/o Tikaram Patel R/o Bade Pandhi, Tahsil - Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Complainant) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.05.02 10:34:28 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. Quash the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 38 of 2024 dated 13.09.2024 registered at Ante Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner. II. Grant any other relief, which may be deemed fit in given facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2024, the complainant/respondent No. 2 made complaint before the ACB, Raipur, alleging therein that the father of complainant has gifted 5 acres land in the name of wife of complainant, namely, Smt. Yogita Patel and the complainant has completed all the formalities for mutation of said land in the name of his wife, but the petitioner has demanded Rs. 35,000/- for putting signature on the documents. The complainant is not want to pay the bribe amount and is willing to caught the petitioner red handed, therefore, he made written complaint before the ACB OfÏce, Raipur. The said ACB proceeded for trapping the petitioner and voice recorder was handed over to the complainant. The complainant went to the OfÏce of petitioner on 10.09.2024 and discussed about the bribe amount with the petitioner and the voice of petitioner and complainant was recorded in voice recorder and the complainant had demanded 03 days time for payment of bribe amount. The complainant has handed over the voice recorder to the ACB for further course of action. On the basis of above complaint, the ACB has registered the offences under Sections 7 and 12 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner in Crime No. 38 of 2024 and arrested the petitioner on 12.09.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 38 of 2024 registered by ACB, Raipur against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He further submits that the ACB has not recovered any currency from the possession of the petitioner and only on the basis of voice recorder, the ACB, Raipur has registered the impugned FIR and arrested her. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of offence under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are not made out against the present petitioner. He further contended that with a malafide and ill motive, the complainant has falsely roped the petitioner in the instant crime in question. He would submit that the petitioner has applied for grant of bail before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) and vide order dated 27.09.2024, the learned Special Judge has granted regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 38 of 2024 dated 13.09.2024 registered at Ante Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that once the 4 FIR has been registered, it has to be investigated and taken to its logical end. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned FIR. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows: “(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 to 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 materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an 5 investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(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 ofÏcer 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 every reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious 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.” 10. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 6 (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 11. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid law and considering the submissions 7 advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submissions raised by learned counsel for petitioner relate to the questions of fact and thus, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage. 13. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11) “11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 14. From the above stated case laws it is apparent that the above stated contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it cannot be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive 8 for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. FIR or criminal proceedings can be quashed only in accordance with parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 15. Further, from the perusal of impugned FIR, it transpires that the complainant, Bhupendra Patel, submitted a written complaint to the ACB ofÏce Raipur on 08.09.2024. The complainant stated that he is a resident of Badepanthi, Tehsil Saraypali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). His father had gifted approximately 5 acres of land to his wife, Yogita Patel, through a deed. The Deputy Registrar, Lili Pushpalata Bek, demanded a bribe of Rs. 35,000/- to sign the land documents and register them. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe, but wanted to get her caught red-handed while taking the bribe. A voice recorder was given to the complainant to record the conversation with the Deputy Registrar. On 10.09.2024, the complainant went to the ofÏce of the accused and recorded the conversation, which verified the demand for a bribe. During the conversation, the accused, Lili Pushpalata Bek, demanded a bribe of Rs. 35,000/-, later agreeing to take Rs. 26,000/-. On 12.09.2024, the complainant submitted a second complaint to the ACB Raipur. A plan was prepared, and the accused was caught red-handed taking a bribe of Rs.26,000/- through her associate, Shatrughan Tandi, at the Deputy Registrar’s OfÏcer in Saraypali. During the investigation, it was found that the co-accused, Shatrughan Tandi, took the bribe amount of Rs. 26,000/- on the instructions of the accused, Lili Pushpalata Bek. Based on this, a case was registered against the accused, Lili Pushpalata Bek and Shatrughan Tandi, under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of 9 Corruption Act, 1988, and the case was taken up for investigation. 16. In view of the above, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction Section 528 of the BNSS or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR. 17. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan