Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dipesh Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022520
CRM-M-47953-2023 2024:PHHC:022520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117 CRM-M-47953-2023
Date of Decision: 06.02.2024
Dipesh Gupta .........Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the pe oner.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons
08 25.05.2022 Vigilance Bureau 7, 7A of Preven on of
Range Ferozepur, Corrup on Act, 1988 as
District Ferozepur amended by Preven on of
Corrup on (Amendment)
Act, 2018
1. Seeking quashing of FIR cap oned above, the pe oner has come up before this Court under Sec on 482 CrPC.
2. I have heard counsel for the pe oner and gone through the en re pe on to ascertain that whether the ma8er is worth issuing no ce to the respondents or not.
3. The translated copy of FIR (Annexure P-1), which reads as follows:
"Statement of Shri Sayyam Goyal son of Shri Hari Krishan Goyal resident of house number 2380, Street number 03, Vijay Nagar, Moga road, Kotkapura age about 30 years, mobile number 9217474908 in connec(on with An( corrup(on helpline complaint number 152104 dated 20.05.2022. Stated that I am resident of above said address. We have a shop in the name and style of Totaram Hari Krishan Commission Agents Private Limited, Kotkapura Shop Number 36A, Navidana Mandi Kotkapura. I alongwith my father Hari Krishan are directors in the said firm. Our firm is 30 years old. This year for purchase of wheat our firm had purchased the wheat through different wheat centres and different agencies. In wheat selling centre Bargadi, our firm was allo9ed to PUNSUP, where Deepesh Gupta, inspector of PUNSUP was in charge of purchasing the wheat from 1 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 03:39:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022520 CRM-M-47953-2023 2024:PHHC:022520 our store. He had purchased from our firm through Bargadi centre 5788 bags of it. In return of the purchase, Inspector Deepesh Gupta of PUNSUP was demanding rupees 1 ½ rupee per bag from us as bribe but we did not give any bribe to him. Due to which he was harassing us in wheat purchase. Now the wheat purchase is over and on 19.05.2022, Inspector Deepesh Gupta came at our Arrat shop number 36A, Navi Dana Mandi, Kotkapura and he also brought along with him one private helper namely Tinku. He demanded Rupees 1 ½ per bag for the purchase of wheat and in this manner he demanded Rs.8700/- from us. When I tried to pay him Rs.8700/-. Then he told me that I should handover this money to Tinku and Rs.9710/- for the shortage of wheat. But I along with my father refused to pay him this amount, then he threatened us that he will not let us run our commission agency and he argued with us. Therefore, I paid him Rs.9710/- which were also given to Tinku helper. Therefore, in this manner on dated 19.05.2022, they took Rs. 18410/- from us. In this regard, there is recording in our shop as there is CCTV installed in our shop. We informed about this on 20.05.20 to Hon'ble CM Punjab, who had issued a helpline number for lodging the complaint of corrup(on and I also sent the recording of CCTV footage to them. Today I have come to you with my complaint got my statement recorded and handed over the CCTV footage of my shop in a pen drive copy of which is given to you. Legal ac(on be taken against the accused. Got my statement recorded which is read over and is correct. Sayyam Goyal signed. Raj Kumar DSP Vigilance Bureau, Punjab Unit Faridkot Police Ac(on dated 23.05.2022. Today myself DSP was present in the office of Vigilance Bureau, Unit Faridkot, When Sayyam Goyal, son of Shri Hari Krishan Goyal resident of House Number 2380, Galli Number 03, Vijay Nagar, Moga Road, Kotkapura came to me, and got his statement recorded got his complaint registered at ant icorrup(on helpline Punjab complaint number 152104. A statement was recorded and read over to him who aCer listening to statement recorded his acceptance as to it being recorded correctly and signed below his statement in English and I had a9ested the same. For the inves(ga(on of the said complaint and in view of the statement given by the complainant and cctv footage produced by him and statement given by Shri Vineet Kumar District Manager, PUNSUP Faridkot and Parvinder Singh Inspector Grade 1 PUNSUP Faridkot. It is substan(ated that Inspector Deepesh Gupta PUNSUP in his presence through his private helper has accepted the money in video recording twice. The money is 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 03:39:52 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022520 CRM-M-47953-2023 2024:PHHC:022520 seen to be paid but the amount of money is not clear from the video. As per the statement of the complainant he had paid Rs 8700 firstly as Rupees 1½ per bag as bribe,money and second (me has paid Rs 9710 for the shortage of wheat. But despite calling the answering respondent number of (mes he has not come to get a statement recorded. He was not authorised to except the money for wheat shortage, despite this, he has received the money for shortage of wheat as a bribe therefore Deepesh Gupta, Inspector of PUNSUP, Faridkot and his private helper Tinku have commi9ed the offence under sec(on 7 and 7A of Preven(on of Corrup(on Act, 1988 as amended by Preven(on of Corrup(on Amendment Act, 2018, therefore aCer taking legal opinion, FIR may be registered against them report number 123/steno/DSP/VB/Faridkot dated 25.05.2022 to senior superintendent of police vigilance bureau Ferozepur through Sipahi Jaskaran Singh number 82/1503Chief Munsi Unit Faridkot, Senior Superintendent of Police Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur vide le9er number 2822/VB/A-4, 25.05.2022 and the opinion of DDA legal vigilance bureau Ferozepur annexed herewith Shri Rajiv Chaudhary, Assistant District A9orney Ferozepur have given his opinion for registra(on of FIR under Sec(on 7 and 7A of Preven(on of Corrup(on Act, 1988 as amended by the Preven(on of Corrup(on Amendment Act 2018. Therefore, under the said offences FIR be registered and further inves(ga(on be ini(ated. The said legal opinion is also endorsed by Senior Superintendent of Police vigilance bureau Ferozepur Range through his order. Register case. Inves(gate."
4. An analysis of the record would lead to the following outcome. The pe oner was posted as Inspector of PUNSUP and allegedly demanded Rs.1.50 per bag as bribe from respondent No.2/complainant -Sayyam Goyal. On refusal to give the bribe, he threatened him that he will not let them run their business of commission agency. In all, he demanded Rs.8700/- & further Rs. 9710/- from him. Therefore, on his asking, complainant had to hand over a total sum of Rs.18,400/- to his helper Tinku on 19.05.2022. The said incident was recorded in CCTV camera.
5. In paragraph 4 of the pe on, the pe oner has tried to take a defence that there was a shortage of 20 Kg and 365 Kg in the stock supplied by the complainant and 3 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 03:39:52 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022520 CRM-M-47953-2023 2024:PHHC:022520 then the amount was paid to one Tinku as the labour charges to pack the wheat and liC the wheat bags.
6. In paragraph 5 of the pe on, the pe oner further submits that CCTV footage has been manipulated in such a way to show that the pe oner had demanded money. Whether CCTV has been manipulated or not, is a ma8er of trial and examina on report by FSL. This is a disputed ques on and while considering to close the en re FIR, this ground is not enough at this stage for the reason that pe oner requires to make out a prima facie case. Whatever the evidence, the state has gathered against the pe oner including the person, who had the control over the DVR needs to be brought on record and cross-examined. Pe oner can ask ques on qua manipula on of CCTV to the relevant witness. All this cannot be done in the pe on under Sec on 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR, as such, this is not a ground to quash the FIR.
7. In paragraph 6 of the pe on, it is men oned that pe oner was assigned the duty to purchase and liCing the wheat bags and in case of any discrepancies regarding shortages, it would have been his responsibility. There is nothing on record that he wrote any le8er or obtain any order qua recovery of amount for shortage of wheat. Further, he was not empowered to appoint any helper, which shows he was his conduit.
8. The pe oner's next ground is that there is no allega on of acceptance of money by the pe oner because it was allegedly taken by the helper. Once the complainant has alleged that the pe oner had directed his helper to take the money, it is again subject of trial and cross-examina on of witnesses.
9. In a nutshell, pe oner arguments are that no amount of bribe was taken by him, whatever was charged that was due to shortage in stock supplied by the complainant, CCTV is manipulated, and further prosecu on can not be launched without sanc on because pe oner was working under the authority of government.
10. No doubt amount of bribe was taken by one Tinku, however, as per the case of prosecu on, complainant handed over the amount to him at the asking of pe oner and said Tinku was accompanying him to the shop of complainant. Further the ques on 4 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 03:39:52 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022520 CRM-M-47953-2023 2024:PHHC:022520 of deficiency can only be proved by any official order or no ng from where it can be ascertained that amount was due towards complainant but there is nothing on record. Similarly, ques on of CCTV manipula on can be answered at the me of trial. As concerned for the sanc on, it is not stage to raise this point and it can be taken only aCer launch of prosecu on. As such, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by pe oner.
11. Given above, present pe on is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. However, the pe oner is permi8ed to raise all these points, if the prosecu on is launched by filing the report under Sec on 173 CrPC and the pe oner is also permi8ed to file an applica on for discharge raising all these pleas in the said applica on. The trial Court to consider such applica on and grounds in details while disposing of the said applica on. Further, in case the pe oner is s ll not sa sfied, liberty is again given to him to come to this Court challenging the charges if the stage arises. However, the observa ons made hereinabove shall not be relied upon for any other purpose and it is clarified that these are only the purposes of deciding the present pe on.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
06.02.2024
Jyo(-II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022520
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2024 03:39:52 :::