Sub Inspector Archana v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Rishi Kesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 55/1204/2025, Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, charge sheet No. 15(A) of 2025 (State Vs. Sub Inspector Archana) under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended in 2018 and 338, 340 of BNS-2023, Police Station Anti Corruption Organization, District Meerut, U.P., during pendency of the trial in the court below. Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.9.2024 against applicant and co-accused Sub Inspector Vikram Singh under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. According the FIR, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and she was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant and his uncle were accused and when complainant met her then she instructed him to meet with co- accused S.I. Vikram Singh and thereafter S.I. Virkram Singh made demand of bribe from him to exonerate him and his uncle.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and co-accused Vikram Singh are dishonest public servant and applicant wanted to take bribe from the complainant through S.I. Vikram Singh.

6. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when complainant made complaint against applicant and co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh then pre-trap proceeding was conducted and thereafter co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant.

7. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against applicant and S.I. Vikram Singh for offences 2 NA528 No. 34874 of 2025 punishable under section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act and 338 and 340 BNS.

8. After submission of the charge sheet, court concerned took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant.

9. Hence the instant application. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant:-

10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and she is an honest police officer and actually complainant was pressurizing her to exonerate him and his Uncle from the criminal case and when applicant refused to do so then he made false allegation against the applicant.

11. He further submitted that however, charge sheet against the applicant has been filed but during investigation Investigating Officer failed to conduct the investigation in proper manner.

12. He further submitted that even from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it could not be reflected that applicant either made any demand of bribe or she accepted the bribe and both the allegations are against co-accused S.I., Vikram Singh but inspite of that charge sheet has also been filed against the applicant under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

13. He further submitted that however, during investigation as per the prosecution it was also revealed that applicant fraudulently pasted fake warrant at the door of the complainant but these allegations are totally false and in this regard Investigating Officer during investigation could not collect any admissible and cogent evidence and therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant even for offences under sections 338, 340 BNS is bad.

14. He further submitted that from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant in any manner abetted but inspite of that charge sheet under section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act has also been filed against him.

15. He further submitted that however, from perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, no offence is made against the applicant but inspite of that court concerned took the cognizance.

16. He next submitted that therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant and proceeding pending against her both are bad and are liable to be quashed. Submission advanced on behalf of the State:-

17. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant was police sub inspector and she was Investigating Officer of the case in which 3 NA528 No. 34874 of 2025 complainant and his uncle were accused and when complainant met her then she through S.I. Vikram Singh made demand of bribe and thereafter he made demand of bribe and accepted the same and was apprehended by trap team.

18. He further submitted that as S.I. Vikram Singh was not the Investigating Officer of the alleged case, therefore, it is apparent that at the behest of the applicant he made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant did not commit offences under section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act.

19. He further pointed out that during investigation it was also revealed that applicant pasted the fake warrants at the door of the complainant and this fact clearly suggests that she is the dishonest public servant and even, prima facie, offences under sections 338, 340 BNSS are also made out against her.

20. He further submitted that even from the record it reflects that trial of the case has already been commenced and statement of complainant has already been recorded by the trial court and therefore, even at this stage, there is no occasion to quash the chargesheet and proceeding pending against the applicant specially considering the fact that prima facie, alleged offences are made out against her.

21. He further submitted that therefore, the instant application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Analysis

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

23. Applicant is a police Sub Inspector and as per allegation she was conducting investigation of a criminal case in which complainant (opposite party no. 3) and his uncle were accused and when complainant met her then she instructed him to contact co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh and thereafter co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh made demand of bribe from the complainant and subsequently co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant, therefore, prima facie from the allegations levelled against the applicant it reflect that applicant through SI Vikram Singh made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe and therefore, prima facie, offences under section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act are made out against the applicant.

24. Further from the charge sheet filed against the applicant it also reflects that the same has also been filed against the applicant for offences punishable under sections 338, 340 BNS and from the material available on record, it reflects that during investigation it was revealed to Investigating Officer that applicant also issued fake warrant to the complainant and pasted the same at the door of his house and therefore, even prima facie, offences under section 338, 340 BNS are made out against the applicant. 4 NA528 No. 34874 of 2025

25. The law with regard to the quashing of the charge sheet and the proceeding pending against an accused is settled that the chargesheet and the proceedings can only be quashed in rare and exceptional circumstances if from the material available on record, no offence is made out against him.

26. In case at hand, as already observed, prima facie, from perusal of the charge sheet and material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation alleged offences are made out against the applicant, therefore, neither charge sheet filed against the applicant nor proceedings pending against her can be quashed.

27. Further, record also suggests that trial of the case is underway and complainant has already been examined as PW-1. In view of this Court even considering this fact at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the trial.

28. The law is further settled that after taking the cognizance and framing the charges the trial should be permitted to come its logical end and during trial ordinarily neither the proceeding pending against an accused nor charge sheet filed against him/her can be quashed.

29. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

30. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rishi Kesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 55/1204/2025, Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, charge sheet No. 15(A) of 2025 (State Vs. Sub Inspector Archana) under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended in 2018 and 338, 340 of BNS-2023, Police Station Anti Corruption Organization, District Meerut, U.P., during pendency of the trial in the court below. Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.9.2024 against applicant and co-accused Sub Inspector Vikram Singh under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. According the FIR, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and she was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant and his uncle were accused and when complainant met her then she instructed him to meet with co- accused S.I. Vikram Singh and thereafter S.I. Virkram Singh made demand of bribe from him to exonerate him and his uncle.

5. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and co-accused Vikram Singh are dishonest public servant and applicant wanted to take bribe from the complainant through S.I. Vikram Singh.

6. It is further mentioned in the FIR that when complainant made complaint against applicant and co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh then pre-trap proceeding was conducted and thereafter co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant.

7. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against applicant and S.I. Vikram Singh for offences 2 NA528 No. 34874 of 2025 punishable under section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act and 338 and 340 BNS.

8. After submission of the charge sheet, court concerned took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant.

9. Hence the instant application. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant:-

10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and she is an honest police officer and actually complainant was pressurizing her to exonerate him and his Uncle from the criminal case and when applicant refused to do so then he made false allegation against the applicant.

11. He further submitted that however, charge sheet against the applicant has been filed but during investigation Investigating Officer failed to conduct the investigation in proper manner.

12. He further submitted that even from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, it could not be reflected that applicant either made any demand of bribe or she accepted the bribe and both the allegations are against co-accused S.I., Vikram Singh but inspite of that charge sheet has also been filed against the applicant under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

13. He further submitted that however, during investigation as per the prosecution it was also revealed that applicant fraudulently pasted fake warrant at the door of the complainant but these allegations are totally false and in this regard Investigating Officer during investigation could not collect any admissible and cogent evidence and therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant even for offences under sections 338, 340 BNS is bad.

14. He further submitted that from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant in any manner abetted but inspite of that charge sheet under section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act has also been filed against him.

15. He further submitted that however, from perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, no offence is made against the applicant but inspite of that court concerned took the cognizance.

16. He next submitted that therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant and proceeding pending against her both are bad and are liable to be quashed. Submission advanced on behalf of the State:-

17. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant was police sub inspector and she was Investigating Officer of the case in which 3 NA528 No. 34874 of 2025 complainant and his uncle were accused and when complainant met her then she through S.I. Vikram Singh made demand of bribe and thereafter he made demand of bribe and accepted the same and was apprehended by trap team.

18. He further submitted that as S.I. Vikram Singh was not the Investigating Officer of the alleged case, therefore, it is apparent that at the behest of the applicant he made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant did not commit offences under section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act.

19. He further pointed out that during investigation it was also revealed that applicant pasted the fake warrants at the door of the complainant and this fact clearly suggests that she is the dishonest public servant and even, prima facie, offences under sections 338, 340 BNSS are also made out against her.

20. He further submitted that even from the record it reflects that trial of the case has already been commenced and statement of complainant has already been recorded by the trial court and therefore, even at this stage, there is no occasion to quash the chargesheet and proceeding pending against the applicant specially considering the fact that prima facie, alleged offences are made out against her.

21. He further submitted that therefore, the instant application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Analysis

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

23. Applicant is a police Sub Inspector and as per allegation she was conducting investigation of a criminal case in which complainant (opposite party no. 3) and his uncle were accused and when complainant met her then she instructed him to contact co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh and thereafter co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh made demand of bribe from the complainant and subsequently co-accused S.I. Vikram Singh was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant, therefore, prima facie from the allegations levelled against the applicant it reflect that applicant through SI Vikram Singh made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe and therefore, prima facie, offences under section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act are made out against the applicant.

24. Further from the charge sheet filed against the applicant it also reflects that the same has also been filed against the applicant for offences punishable under sections 338, 340 BNS and from the material available on record, it reflects that during investigation it was revealed to Investigating Officer that applicant also issued fake warrant to the complainant and pasted the same at the door of his house and therefore, even prima facie, offences under section 338, 340 BNS are made out against the applicant. 4 NA528 No. 34874 of 2025

25. The law with regard to the quashing of the charge sheet and the proceeding pending against an accused is settled that the chargesheet and the proceedings can only be quashed in rare and exceptional circumstances if from the material available on record, no offence is made out against him.

26. In case at hand, as already observed, prima facie, from perusal of the charge sheet and material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation alleged offences are made out against the applicant, therefore, neither charge sheet filed against the applicant nor proceedings pending against her can be quashed.

27. Further, record also suggests that trial of the case is underway and complainant has already been examined as PW-1. In view of this Court even considering this fact at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the trial.

28. The law is further settled that after taking the cognizance and framing the charges the trial should be permitted to come its logical end and during trial ordinarily neither the proceeding pending against an accused nor charge sheet filed against him/her can be quashed.

29. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

30. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad