Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umed Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 August, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101052
1
CRR-20-2024 (O&M)
326 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-28027-2024 in/and
CRR-20-2024 (O&M)
Decided on: 05.08.2024
Umed Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 10 10.04.2023 ACB, Hisar 7, 7A of PC Act and 384, 180, 120B IPC CRM-28027-2024
Present application has been filed by the petitioner praying for preponement of date fixed in the main case from 20.11.2024 to some early date.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
Date of hearing in the main case is preponed from 20.11.2024 to today i.e. 05.08.2024 and main petition is taken on board today itself.
CRR-20-2024
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which charges were framed against the petitioner and his co-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7 & 13 of PC Act r/w 120-B IPC and 384 IPC, has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Section 401 CrPC 1973.
2. The above captioned FIR was registered on 10.04.2023 based on the complaint of Sunil Kumar who has not been arraigned as respondent in the present petition. The 1 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:27:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101052 2 CRR-20-2024 (O&M) complainant Sunil Kumar, who claimed to be an Advocate, informed the police that an FIR for offence relating to cheating and criminal conspiracy was registered against him in Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar and another FIR for almost similar offence in the police station City Hansi. Inspector Umed Singh (present petitioner) investigated the FIR No.99 of 2021 and complainant met him in connection with the said case. During such conversation Inspector Umed Singh (petitioner) told the complainant Sunil Kumar that instead of arresting him he can get his name deleted from the case and for that he has to make some expenses and asked him to meet Shiv Kumar Engineer who would further convey all the details. Umed Singh also told that Shiv Kumar was related to him and gave his phone number. Subsequently, complainant contacted Shiv Kumar who told him that Umed Singh is demanding Rs.7 lacs to delete his name from the accused list and if he refused to pay the money, he would arrest the complainant. Based under such pressure, complainant paid Rs.5,50,000/- as bribe for Umed Singh to Shiv Kumar in the meantime of March. The complainant submits that despite receiving Rs.5,50,000 they were pressurizing him to pay balance amount of Rs.1.5 lacs.
3. Perusal of the police report under Section 173 CrPC (Annexure P-2) reveals that after that a trap was laid and one government official SDO, Office Irrigation Department was added as independent witness and after treating the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder, the money was handed over to Sunil Kumar. The independent witness was also asked to hear the conversation between Shiv Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Based on this trap, subsequently, Shiv Kumar accepted the money from the complainant-Sunil Kumar who gave signal and then police nabbed Shiv Kumar along with tainted money of Rs. One lac and he was arrested. During the investigation Shiv Kumar was made to call petitioner Umed Singh on his mobile number about having receipt of Rs. One lac as asked and to do his work. The phone was duly recorded in which Umed Singh told that all these things cannot be spoken on phone. After that the petitioner was also arraigned as accused and after the investigation, prosecution was launched against both, Shiv Kumar as well as Umed Singh. Vide order dated 15.07.2023, learned Sessions Judge, Hisar found a prima facie case for framing of charges and consequently, framed the charges as have been described above. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking quashing of the order for framing of charges and the formal charge-sheet.
4. Petitioner's counsel argued that there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence because the money was recovered from Shiv Kumar and not from Umed Singh. He further submits that there is neither any demand nor acceptance, as such, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. He further submits that even if the money was recovered from Shiv Kumar, he is not liable for the said recovery because it is his individual act. Simply because Shiv Kumar is Saadu of the petitioner, would not make the petitioner 2 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:27:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101052 3 CRR-20-2024 (O&M) liable for the same.
5. Counsel for the State has opposed the petition and argued that there was specific complaint against Umed Singh and Shiv Kumar who was cohort and tout, had only collected money on his behalf. In addition to the specific statement of the complainant which is corroborated by pendency of an FIR and call details in which, Umed Singh did not objected to the receipt of money but stated that these things are not discussed on phone, were sufficient reasons to proceed to launch prosecution. Counsel for the State has further stated that the prosecution sanction was granted by Additional Director General of Police, Hisar, Range Hisar who is a very senior level officer and sanction was granted after application of mind.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.
7. It would be appropriate to reproduce sanction order which reads as follows:-
"SANCTION ORDER Whereas it has been brought to my notice that case FIR No. 10 dated 10.04.2023 u/s 180, 384, 120-B IPC & 7,7A, 13 (1) (B) PC Act, PS ACB, Hisar has been registered against Umed Singh who at the time of commission of the above said offence was posted as Inspector, Incharge, Economic Offence Wing, Hansi, District Police, Hansi.
As per record received from the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar, it has been revealed that Umed Singh S/o Sh. Hira Lal R/o Bhattu Kalan, (Police Line, Hisar) while being posted as Inspector, Incharge Economic Offence Wing, Hansi in District Police, Hansi at the time of commission of above said offence, had demanded Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakhs) as bribe money from complainant Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Ramphal Village Dharam Kheri and accepted Rs. 5,50,000/- through co- accused Shiv Kumar prior to date of raid and demanded and accepted Rs. 1,00,000/- through co-accused Shiv Kumar on the date of raid on pretext of exonerating him (complainant) in case FIR No. 17 dated 07.01.2021 u/s 193, 201, 205, 297, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC PS City, Hansi as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing a favor to him in the discharge of his official duties by illegal and corrupt means by abusing his position as a public servant.
And whereas after carefully examining the materials i.e. statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. i.e. charge-sheet and other documents forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hisar, I am of the considered opinion that accused Umed Singh, Inspector has committed the above said offence.
And whereas without prior sanction of the competent authority no Court can take cognizance of the offence u/s 13 PC Act No. 49 of 1988. So there is no ground whatsoever to refuse or withhold the sanction for the prosecution of accused Umed Singh (at the time of commission of above said offence he was posted as Inspector, Incharge, Economic Offence 3 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:27:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101052 4 CRR-20-2024 (O&M) Wing, Hansi, District Police, Hansi) in interst of justice.
Therefore, I Shrikant Jadhav, the Additional Director General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar is being competent authority to accord the requisite prosecution sanction against said accused Umed Singh, Inspector. Therefore, after applying my mind, on the record submitted by the Superintendent of Police, ACB (H), Hisar Range, Hisar, and in the interest of justice, I accord the requisite prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 for taking cognizance by the Competent Court for the prosecution of Umed Singh (at the time of commission of the above said offence he was posted as Inspector, Incharge, Economic Offence Wing, Hansi, District Police, Hansi) in the interest of justice for the offence u/s 180, 384, 120-B IPC & 7, 7A, 13(1) (B) PC Act, PS ACB, Hisar and for any other offence for which he may be found guilty."
8. Complainant Sunil Kumar was arraigned as accused in an FIR in which he wanted favour from the petitioner-Umed Singh who was SHO. The petitioner demanded Rs.7 lacs for deleting the name of the complainant from the said FIR and also allegedly threatened him that in case, he fails to pay the money he would arrest him. As per complainant, petitioner-Umed Singh had asked the complainant to speak about this to his Sadu Shiv Kumar and later on tainted money was recovered from Shiv Kumar. After that a prosecution sanction has been given after discussing all the aspects. In the light of these facts, arguments of the petitioner that there was no demand or acceptance, is mis- conceived for the reason that there was a demand acceptance through Shiv Kumar and that is why Section 120 B IPC 1860 was also arraigned and charges have also been framed in that Section. Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to Constitutional Bench of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi) and also of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and another as well as State Tr. Insp. Of Police vs. A. Arun Kumar and another. There is no quarrel with the judgments referred herein but as per plot created by the petitioner-Umed Singh, the demand was made through co-horts (Sadu)-Shiv Kumar and money was accepted for and on behalf of the petitioner. If the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel are made the basis to determine demand and acceptance then no person who receives bribe through his cohorts can ever be prosecuted or convicted, which is not the interpretation of Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 384 IPC or 120B IPC.
9. Given above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.08.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 4 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-08-2024 06:27:57 :::