Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijay Kumar Singh Jadon) and the summoning order dated

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Srivastava Udaybhan Shukla Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Haider, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Srivatava, learned counsel appearing for the CBI and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Session Case/Trial No.1293 of 2025 (Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Vijay Kumar Singh Jadon) and the summoning order dated 6.5.2025 as well as charge sheet dated 11.03.2025 filed in Case Crime No.RC 1202025A0001, under Section 7 PC Act, Police Station CBI, District Ghaziabad. Brief facts of the case:

3. Applicant is public servant and he was posted as Assistant Post Master in Post Office and as per allegation to withdraw the amount from the joint account of the complainant and his mother, he made demand of Rs. Ten Thousand from him and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by CBI Team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant and bribe money of Rs. Ten Thousand was also allegedly recovered from his possession. Argument advanced on behalf of the applicant:

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is public servant and he was posted as Assistant Post Master in Post Office but on the basis of false allegation charge sheet in the present has been 2 NA528 No. 41614 of 2025 filed against him.

5. He further submits that however, from the perusal of the record it reflects that it is a case of trap and as per allegation applicant not only made demand of illegal gratification from the complainant but he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team but entire trap proceeding is manipulated.

6. He further submits that even from the charge sheet it reflects that the Investigating Officer failed to conduct proper investigation.

7. He further submits that however, admittedly the case is of the year 2025 but in four places the year has been mentioned as 2010 in the charge sheet and this fact indicates that investigation of the case is tainted one.

8. He further submits that even from the charge sheet it could not be reflected that what was the time of trap and only time of arrest of applicant has been mentioned in the charge sheet.

9. He further submits that actually applicant did not either make demand of bribe or accept the bribe from the complainant and the complainant on the instigation of CBI Team forcibly put the bribe money in the pocket of the shirt of the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant has committed an offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act.

10. He further submits that even being Assistant Post Master, the applicant was not authorized to give permission to withdraw the amount from the joint account of the complainant and his mother.

11. He further submits that without any proper investigation in routine manner not only charge sheet has been filed against the applicant but the court concerned also took the cognizance and, therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant and cognizance order are bad and both are liable to be quashed. Argument advanced by CBI and State:

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that law is settled that charge 3 NA528 No. 41614 of 2025 sheet filed against an accused and the proceedings pending against him can be quashed only in rarest of rare cases. They further submitted, it is a case of trap in which applicant was not only apprehend red handed by Trap Team but even the bribe money of Rs.Ten Thousand was also recovered from his possession and in such cases neither charge sheet nor proceedings pending against him should be quashed.

13. They further submitted that however, it appears that in the charge sheet in some places year has been mentioned as 2010 but it appears that due to inadvertence the year has been mentioned as 2010 in place of 2025 and on this ground it cannot be said that entire investigation is tainted one.

14. They further submitted that the other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be properly appreciated by this Court at this stage as at this stage neither mini trial is permissible nor possible.

15. They further submitted that prima facie from the material available on record offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant and trap proceeding at this stage cannot be disbelieved.

16. They further submitted that therefore, instant application is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:

17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

18. By way of instant application applicant made prayer to quash the charge sheet filed against him under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act as well as proceedings pending against him.

19. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI and the learned AGA that the proceedings pending against an accused and charge sheet filed against him can be quashed only in rare circumstances where either from the perusal of the material available on record, prima facie alleged offences are not made out or prima facie the allegation appears to be false and baseless.

20. In case at hand, admittedly applicant was public servant and he was 4 NA528 No. 41614 of 2025 posted as Assistant Post Master in Post Office and as per allegation he not only made demand of illegal gratification from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed by CBI while he was receiving bribe from him and even bribe money of Rs. Ten Thousand was also recovered from his possession therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant.

21. Further, however, learned counsel for the applicant tried to demonstrate that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant matter but at this stage his arguments cannot be appreciated as at this stage mini trial is neither permissible nor permissible.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, instant application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed .

23. Accordingly, instant application stands dismissed. October 29, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.)

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Srivastava Udaybhan Shukla Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Haider, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rahul Srivatava, learned counsel appearing for the CBI and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Session Case/Trial No.1293 of 2025 (Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Vijay Kumar Singh Jadon) and the summoning order dated 6.5.2025 as well as charge sheet dated 11.03.2025 filed in Case Crime No.RC 1202025A0001, under Section 7 PC Act, Police Station CBI, District Ghaziabad. Brief facts of the case:

3. Applicant is public servant and he was posted as Assistant Post Master in Post Office and as per allegation to withdraw the amount from the joint account of the complainant and his mother, he made demand of Rs. Ten Thousand from him and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by CBI Team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant and bribe money of Rs. Ten Thousand was also allegedly recovered from his possession. Argument advanced on behalf of the applicant:

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is public servant and he was posted as Assistant Post Master in Post Office but on the basis of false allegation charge sheet in the present has been 2 NA528 No. 41614 of 2025 filed against him.

5. He further submits that however, from the perusal of the record it reflects that it is a case of trap and as per allegation applicant not only made demand of illegal gratification from the complainant but he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team but entire trap proceeding is manipulated.

6. He further submits that even from the charge sheet it reflects that the Investigating Officer failed to conduct proper investigation.

7. He further submits that however, admittedly the case is of the year 2025 but in four places the year has been mentioned as 2010 in the charge sheet and this fact indicates that investigation of the case is tainted one.

8. He further submits that even from the charge sheet it could not be reflected that what was the time of trap and only time of arrest of applicant has been mentioned in the charge sheet.

9. He further submits that actually applicant did not either make demand of bribe or accept the bribe from the complainant and the complainant on the instigation of CBI Team forcibly put the bribe money in the pocket of the shirt of the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant has committed an offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act.

10. He further submits that even being Assistant Post Master, the applicant was not authorized to give permission to withdraw the amount from the joint account of the complainant and his mother.

11. He further submits that without any proper investigation in routine manner not only charge sheet has been filed against the applicant but the court concerned also took the cognizance and, therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant and cognizance order are bad and both are liable to be quashed. Argument advanced by CBI and State:

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that law is settled that charge 3 NA528 No. 41614 of 2025 sheet filed against an accused and the proceedings pending against him can be quashed only in rarest of rare cases. They further submitted, it is a case of trap in which applicant was not only apprehend red handed by Trap Team but even the bribe money of Rs.Ten Thousand was also recovered from his possession and in such cases neither charge sheet nor proceedings pending against him should be quashed.

13. They further submitted that however, it appears that in the charge sheet in some places year has been mentioned as 2010 but it appears that due to inadvertence the year has been mentioned as 2010 in place of 2025 and on this ground it cannot be said that entire investigation is tainted one.

14. They further submitted that the other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be properly appreciated by this Court at this stage as at this stage neither mini trial is permissible nor possible.

15. They further submitted that prima facie from the material available on record offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant and trap proceeding at this stage cannot be disbelieved.

16. They further submitted that therefore, instant application is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:

17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

18. By way of instant application applicant made prayer to quash the charge sheet filed against him under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act as well as proceedings pending against him.

19. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI and the learned AGA that the proceedings pending against an accused and charge sheet filed against him can be quashed only in rare circumstances where either from the perusal of the material available on record, prima facie alleged offences are not made out or prima facie the allegation appears to be false and baseless.

20. In case at hand, admittedly applicant was public servant and he was 4 NA528 No. 41614 of 2025 posted as Assistant Post Master in Post Office and as per allegation he not only made demand of illegal gratification from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed by CBI while he was receiving bribe from him and even bribe money of Rs. Ten Thousand was also recovered from his possession therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant.

21. Further, however, learned counsel for the applicant tried to demonstrate that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant matter but at this stage his arguments cannot be appreciated as at this stage mini trial is neither permissible nor permissible.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, instant application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed .

23. Accordingly, instant application stands dismissed. October 29, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.)