Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Pateriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
WP No.19813/2020
(Satish Pateriya v. State of MP and Another)
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.19813/2020
(Satish Pateriya v. State of MP and Another)
Jabalpur, Dated : 15.03.2021
Per: Smt. Anjuli Palo,J.-
Mr. Devendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Dileep Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Abhijeet Awasthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of charge-sheet dated 23.11.2020 as well as order of sanction of prosecution dated 04.08.2020. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to continue him as Range Officer, Tendukheda.
2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is holding the substantial post of Forester and at the relevant time he was posted as Range Assistant, Forest Range Badamalhera, Forest Division- Chhatarpur. That one JCB Machine of complainant, namely, Manish Jain was seized by the Forest Department, Range Bukswaha. Process of confiscation was started by the authorised authority - B.L. Verma, Sub- Divisional Officer (Forest) (main accused) who demanded bribe of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant. The complainant made a written complaint before the respondent No.2. The Lokayukta authority as per procedure of the department had given voice recorder to the complainant and sent him for recording conversation with that B.L. Verma. Accordingly, conversation was recorded in which it is clear that said B.L. Verma had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for releasing the vehicle and the petitioner instigated him for it.
3. After completing the procedure, respondent No.2 registered the FIR against B.L. Verma. In the said FIR, no involvement of the petitioner is mentioned. However, during investigation, the petitioner :2: WP No.19813/2020 (Satish Pateriya v. State of MP and Another) has been made accused on the basis of some conversation among the complainant, main accused- B.L. Verma and the petitioner and offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'the Act') has been registered against the petitioner. The respondent No.1 called report from the concerned department in respect of the petitioner. It is stated that all the concerned departments have sent report in favour of the petitioner stating that there is no record against him. It is also averred that the case of confiscation related with Forest Range- Bukswaha whereas the petitioner was posted at Badamalhera. However, the DFO and CCF wrongly mentioned the place of posting of the petitioner as Range Assistant, Bakswaha and sent report in the case of prosecution sanction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere presence of the petitioner at the place of recording is not sufficient to implicate him in crime in question. At the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Range Assistant, Forest Range, Badamalhera. Thus, it is contended, the chargesheet dated 23.11.2020 as well as order dated 04.08.2020 giving prosecution sanction in respect of the petitioner be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the main accused is B.L.Sharma against whom the named FIR has been lodged and he was trapped by the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Organisation, District Sagar. The petitioner has no role in committing the offence with the main accused. He is falsely implicated in the case. Thus, he is entitled to be discharged from the charge of offence under Section 12 of the Act and the chargesheet dated 23.11.2020 and the order of prosecution sanction dated 04.08.2020 deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 strongly opposed the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is a transcript of the conversation of the petitioner with the :3: WP No.19813/2020 (Satish Pateriya v. State of MP and Another) complainant Manish Jain which reflects that the petitioner was working as an agent of the main accused B.L.Verma in instigating the complainant to pay bribe to main accused B.L.Verma. The bribe money was recovered from the possession of co-accused B.L. Verma. Therefore, sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is proper.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The main question that arises for consideration is whether at this stage, the charge-sheet dated 23.11.2020 and the order granting sanction dated 04.08.2020 should be quashed by this Court.
8. In the statements of complainant-Manish Jain, S.P.Kori and N.P.Sonkar recorded by the Investigation Officer, the presence of the petitioner at the time of incident has prima facie been established. Similarly, in the transcript of the voice recording, the petitioner also abetted the complainant to give money to main accused B.L. Verma for the work as required by the complainant. It is important to mention here that the petitioner was called by the Investigating Agency to give his voice sample which was refused by the petitioner.
9. Chargesheet has already been filed against the petitioner. At the time to framing the charges, evaluating the evidence is not permissible. Allegations against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is different from that of the main accused B.L.Verma. The allegation against him is of committing offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Act. The sanctioning authority, after considering all these aspects granted :4: WP No.19813/2020 (Satish Pateriya v. State of MP and Another) sanction under Section 19 of the Act for prosecution of the petitioner. From the order passed by the sanctioning authority, it appears that the material evidence available against the petitioner was placed before the authority for consideration. The contentions raised by the petitioner are the matter of evidence which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
10. In the case of State of M.P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena, (1996) 11 SCC 439 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings where even challan had not been filed the order of sanction could not have been treated by the High Court ex facie illegal or invalid. It is settled law that at the stage of granting of sanction, the accused need not be heard. The question whether all the relevant evidence which would have titled the balance in favour of the accused if it was considered by the sanctioning authority before granting sanction and which was actually left out of consideration, could be examined only at the stage of trial when the sanctioning authority comes forward as a prosecution witness to support the sanction order, if challenged during the trial. It is further held that as that stage was not reached the prosecution could not have been quashed at the very inception on the supposition that all the relevant documents were not considered by the sanctioning authority while granting the impugned sanction.
11. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it has been laid down that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding, should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction :5: WP No.19813/2020 (Satish Pateriya v. State of MP and Another) on the High Court to act according to its whim or caprice. The Courts will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686, Ramesh Singh Bhadoriya v. State of MP, 2020 SCC Online MP 887 and Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 317.
12. In the case at hand, there is transcript of the conversation of the petitioner with the complainant Manish Jain which reflects that the petitioner was working as an agent of the main accused B.L. Verma. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was instigating the complainant to pay bribe to the main accused. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is nothing against the petitioner.
13. In view of the aforesaid enunciations of law and in the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the charge-sheet dated 23.11.2020 and the order of sanction dated 04.08.2020 cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
ks
Digitally signed by
KOUSHLENDRA SHARAN
SHUKLA
Date: 2021.03.18 05:56:56 -07'00'