Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharad Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036
1 MCRC-37924-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37924 of 2023
SHARAD KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel with Shri Yash
Dixit for the petitioners.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Reserved on 22.04.2025
Pronounced on 06.05.2025.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973 is preferred seeking following reliefs:
1) The proceedings in the learned trial court Rajgarh in connection with FIR 88/2022 of S.P.E Lokayukta Bhopal may kindly be stayed till the disposal of this application.
2) The record of the learned trial court may kindly be Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036
2 MCRC-37924-2023 requisitioned for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
3) The impugned FIR and its proceedings may kindly be quashed.
4) Any other relief the Hon'ble Court deems fit to be granted.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioner No.1 Sharad Kumar was posted as Assistant Teacher in Govt. Girls Secondary School, Sarangpur, district Rajgarh and was in additional charge of Accountant. Petitioner No.2 Vikram Singh was posted as Assistant District Project Co- Ordinator at District Education Centre, Rajgarh. Both are public servant and respondent No.2 was working as Assistant Warden, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Chhatrawas, Jeerapur, district Rajgarh.
3. A First Information Report under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120-B of the IPC was registered at police station Special Police Establishment District Lokayukta as FIR No.88 of 2022 against the petitioners. In this FIR, the complainant is the respondent No.2. The First Information Report was registered on 27.04.2022.
4. After investigation, the final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C was submitted to the Court of Special Judge appointed under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Rajgarh where a special case Lokayukt No.2 of 2023 has been registered.
5. Challenging the registration of the First Information Report Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 3 MCRC-37924-2023 and consequent further proceedings, this petition has been preferred on the grounds that:
(i) The original complaint has no basis at all. It seems rather an attempt to settle personal vendetta against the petitioner no.2. The contents of the FIR are enough to show that the complainant is aggrieved with petitioner no.2 for various reasons. No connection can be established between the petitioners and the complained acts of alleged transaction in the audio clip. There is no demand and no acceptance of bribe.
(ii) There is no compliance of section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the investigating agency. It is sine qua non for stepping further against the petitioners. Accordingly, the action is vitiated for these reasons.
(iii) There is an absence of opportunity of hearing under the M.P Lokayukta Act, 1981.
(iv) The origin of the compact disk (CD) with call recording presented by the complainant is not known. The mobile phone/device in which this recording was made has not been seized for the purpose of investigation and for want of certificate under section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the audio CD in question cannot be considered and the investigating agency can not proceed without any legally admissible evidence.
(v) The investigating agency has not obtained any proper Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036
4 MCRC-37924-2023 sanction for prosecution against the petitioners from the competent authority. The impugned FIR and the ensuing proceedings are grossly unjust, arbitrary and contradictory to the settled law and are hence liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
6. Heard.
7. Counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 independently opposed the petition.
8. Perused the record.
9. The parameters applicable for quashment of FIR have been settled in the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal -AIR 1992 SC 604, which are being reproduced as under:
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 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 F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156( 1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 5 MCRC-37924-2023
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 F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer 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 ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient 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 efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 6 MCRC-37924-2023
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengence on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect 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; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegtions made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
We also give a note of caution to the effect 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; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 7 MCRC-37924-2023
10. Further in Partbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another - (2017) 10 S.C.R 12, ten principles to be kept in kind while considering quashment of FIR/criminal proceedings are stated which are reproduced as below:
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 8 MCRC-37924-2023 the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) Economic offences involving the financial and economic well- being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.
11. Now come to the fact of this case. The report of Regional forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal dated 04.02.2022 of voice analysis lab regarding CD filed by the complainant (respondent No.2) with her complaint opined tat in the CD the voice in question marked as "Q(A)"
is the probable voice of the petitioner Sharad Kumar Vyas and the voice marked as "Q(B)" is the probable voice of the petitioner Vikram Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 9 MCRC-37924-2023 Rathore.
12. The transcript of the voice, which is conversation of one minute forty seconds is available with the final report submitted to the Special Court.
13. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal - AIR 2020 SC 4908 , the procedure to be adopted where either defective certificate (under section 65B(4)) is given or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person has been prescribed. The relevant para-50 of the report is being reproduced as under:
50. We may hasten to add that Section 65B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V (supra), this Court did observe that such certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is produced in evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases where such certificate could be procured by the person seeking to rely upon an electronic record. However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge ought to do when the electronic record is produced in evidence before him without the requisite Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 10 MCRC-37924-2023 certificate in the circumstances aforementioned. This is, of course, subject to discretion being exercised in civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance with the requirements of justice on the facts of each case.
When it comes to criminal trials, it is important to keep in mind the general principle that the accused must be supplied all documents that the prosecution seeks to rely upon before commencement of the trial, under the relevant sections of the CrPC.
14. In the light of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra) the relief cannot be granted under section 482 of the Cr.P.C on the ground raised in para 5(iv) as the same can be considered/examined by the trial court after following the procedure as mentioned above.
15. Now before proceeding further, we are referring section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as applicable w.e.f 26.07.2018 which is reproduced below:
7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.--Any public servant who,--
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 11 MCRC-37924-2023 or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
16. In Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab - 2025 INSC 320, it has been laid down that actual exchange of bribe is not an essential requirement to be prescribed under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as section speaks of the "attempt to obtain" a bribe as being in itself an offence. The relevant para 12 & 13 of the report is being reproduced:
12. Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence.
Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms.
13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 12 MCRC-37924-2023 requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the Act 1988 respectively.
17. Respondent No.2/complainant has made specific allegation of demanding Rs.50,000/- by petitioner Vikram Singh from her and the CD, transcript of which is on record contains the probable voice of both petitioners as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report and refers to their agreement for obtaining illegal gratification in connection with the posting of Assistant Warden. Accordingly, the argument that complaint has no basis at all and it is an attempt to settle personal vendetta against the petitioners cannot be recorded at this stage and the petitioners do not succeed on the reference of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)- (2023) 4 SCC 731 in the light of allegation levelled against the petitioners and ground no.4(i) does not succeed.
18. The sanction for prosecution of the petitioners was granted on 06.06.2023 and is referred at serial no.29 of the list of documents filed along with the final report. The sanction is in the authority of Governor of Madhya Pradesh. In this case, the matter relates to demand of illegal gratification translated into the attempt to obtain undue advantage and does not fall in the category of offence related to any recommendation made or decision taken by them as a public servant in Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 13 MCRC-37924-2023 discharge of their official functions or duties and the objection of section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not succeed. The ground no.4(ii) has no substance.
19. In the State of Karnataka vs. T.N.Sudhakar Reddy - 2025 INSC 229, the Apex Court has held that the preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in every case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. If a superior officer is in seisin of a source information report which is both detailed and well-reasoned and such that any reasonable person would be of the view that it prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, the preliminary enquiry may be avoided. The petitioners do not succeed on the strength of Smt.Meera Devi Saxena vs. State of M.P - 2022 Latest Case Law 13377 MP; Hussein Ghadially alias M.H.G.A Shaikh and others vs. State of Gujarat -(2014) 8 SCC 425; Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs. Axis Bank and others - (2021) 6 SCC 707; Suneel Kumar Jain vs. State of M.P & others - 2000 (1) LJL 118 and Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor -AIR 1936 PC 253 raising the contention that the complaint was not in the prescribed format of Rule 6 of Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt (Investigation) Rules, 1982 and Legal Advisor to the Lokayukt is not the competent authority under the Act and petitioners have been afforded the hearing in the enquiry in the light of limited scope of quashment of First Information Report.
20. Accordingly, when we examine the First Information Report in the light of material collected during investigation in this case Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:23:38 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12036 14 MCRC-37924-2023 and filed along with the final report submitted to the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the matter does not satisfy the test laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Partbatbhai Aahir (supra) for quashment of First Information Report of crime no.88/2022 registered at PS Special Police Establishment district Lokayukt, Bhopal. Hence, this petition does not succeed and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 5/7/2025
12:23:38 PM