Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 20.05.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 20 May, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:19004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No. 171 of 2025
Date of Decision: 20.05.2026
__________________________________________________________________
Sanjeev Kumar .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another .......Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
rt
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.
Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the
respondent-State.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Through, instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.01 of 2019, dated 06.02.2019, under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short "Act"), registered at Police Station SV & ACB, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS2 2026:HHC:19004
2. Quintessential facts, as emerge from the pleadings as well as .
other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Sh. Vijay Kumar, who runs an academy/coaching centre for candidates willing to join the Army and other of paramilitary forces, alleging therein that two days back, he had received telephonic calls from mobile No.9050669912 and 9541466777 from some rt unknown person, claiming therein that he could get the persons, who had taken coaching from him, selected in the Army, as he had links therein.
Complainant alleged that on 27.01.2019, written examination was conducted for recruitment in the Army and the person, who had given him telephonic calls, assured him that in case any candidate desirous of getting selected pay Rs. 2,00, 000/-, he would get him selected. He also alleged that afore person also asked him to come and meet him at Una. Complainant, who had recorded his telephonic conversation ,came to Una and reported the matter to the police, whereafter a trap was laid and petitioner herein was caught red-
handed while accepting bribe i.e cheque of Rs. 2, 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-
in cash. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be instituted against the petitioner. Though, ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:19004 after completion of the investigation, police has already presented the challan .
in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR on the ground that no case much less under Section 7 A of the Act is made out against him and as such, FIR as well as consequential of proceedings sought to be quashed deserve to be quashed at the very threshold.
3. rt Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse Section 7-A of the Act, vehemently argued that no case, much less under aforesaid provision of law, is made out against the petitioner because nothing has emerged during investigation that petitioner herein ever attempted to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. He submitted that though no cogent and convincing evidence has been adduced on record by the prosecution suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein had ever assured the respondent/complainant that in case any candidate desirous of getting selection in Army pays a sum of ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:19004 Rs. 2,00,000/- he would get him selected, but even if aforesaid claim of the .
complainant is presumed to be correct, no case under Section 7-A of the Act could have been registered against the petitioner because no evidence, worth credence, has been collected on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein had any link with the public servant responsible for Army of recruitment and, he, in furtherance of his assurance given to complainant, ever contacted any public servant or attempted to induce him to perform or to rt cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since basic ingredients of Section 7-A of the Act are totally missing, case of the prosecution is bound to fail in all probabilities and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequential proceedings, deserves to be allowed because, in case the FIR is not quashed, petitioner would be unnecessarily put to the ordeal of a protected trial, which is otherwise bound to fail.
4. To the contrary, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submission made at the behest of the petitioner, vehemently argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to the effect that petitioner herein demanded ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:19004 money from the complainant for getting his candidates selected in the Indian .
Army. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that petitioner's assurance to the respondent/complainant that he would get his candidates selected in the Army, subject to payment of the amount, as detailed hereinabove, on the ground that he had links in the Army that, is sufficient to of invoke Section 7-A of the Act. Learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that there is evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that rt petitioner claimed himself to be tout of person responsible for carrying out recruitment in the Indian Army. He submitted that since petitioner herein had taken money in the name of the persons responsible for making selections, he rightly came to be booked under Section 7-A of the Act. Lastly, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that whether petitioner had taken money for himself or the public servant responsible for recruiting person in Indian Army, is a question to be decided by learned Court below in totality of facts as well as evidence adduced on record and as such present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is not maintainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS6 2026:HHC:19004
6. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the .
aforesaid submissions and counter submissions made on behalf of learned counsel representing the parties, this Court deems it necessary to discuss /elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings, while exercising power under Section 528 of of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
7. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was explained by the rt Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under:-
"7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(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 FIR 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.::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:19004 (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 FIR 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.
of (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.
rt (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge." (emphasis added)
8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case.
In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed.
As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.
Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed."
10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 8 2026:HHC:19004 invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC .
itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the of complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
8. From the aforesaid exposition of law, it is clear that power under rt Section 482 Cr.P.C.( Now section 528 of BNSS) can be exercised in the following conditions:(i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides;
(ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably.
9. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à-vis factual matrix of the case.
10. Though, there is no dispute that petitioner herein, who is not a public servant, was caught red-handed by the police while taking/accepting ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:19004 bribe from the complainant, who had actually made complaint to the police .
that petitioner had claimed that he could get his candidates selected in the Army, provided each candidate pays a sum of Rs. 2, 00,000/-. Investigation conducted by the investigating agency , as is evident from the final challan filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., suggests that the petitioner claimed himself of to be tout for the public servant responsible for Army recruitment, had telephonically contacted the complainant, who runs an academy, stating rt therein that in case candidates desirous of getting themselves selected in the Army, pay a sum of Rs. 2, 00,000/- each, he would get them selected, but there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner, after demanding aforesaid amount, ever attempted to induce the public servant responsible for recruitment to do some unlawful act. No evidence, be it ocular or documentary, has been adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein was ever in touch with the public servant responsible for conducting recruitment pursuant to the written examination held on 27.01.2019 at Palampur.
11. To ascertain whether case, if any, under aforesaid provisions of law is made out against the petitioner, it would be apt to take note of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act, which reads as under:
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS10 2026:HHC:19004 .
"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 of person as a reward for the improper 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 rt 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.
Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration. - A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2. - For the purpose of this section,-
(i)the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii)it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS11 2026:HHC:19004 .
"SECTION 7A : Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence-Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal of influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with rt 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."
12. Bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of law clearly reveals that it can be invoked against the public servant, however, it is not in dispute that in the instant case, petitioner is not the public servant. Apart from above, to invoke Sections 7 and Section 7-A of the Act, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that any public servant obtains or makes an attempt to obtain undue advantage with an 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. In the case at hand, there is no allegation of demand, if any, made by the public servant of bribe. There is no complaint, if any, made by a person that public servant ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 12 2026:HHC:19004 in lieu of discharging his duty, made an attempt to take undue advantage .
from him/her, in whose favour, such work was to be done.
13. Similarly, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that attempt, if any, was ever made by the petitioner to influence the public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence. It is of none of the case of the Investigating Agency that petitioner, being tout, with a view to get the undue favour, gave bribe to public servant responsible for rt recruitment in army, rather precise case of the prosecution is that petitioner apprised complainant that he has links in Army and he can get candidate selected in Army, provided, he/she pay sum of Rs. 2, 00,000/- each. Had amount, if any, received by the petitioner from the complainant was further handed over to public servant to get the candidates selected, prosecution was well within its right to invoke Section 7-A of the Act, but certainly once there is no material, worth credence, adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein had some type of contact with public servant responsible for selection in the Army and while getting illegal work done, he had handed over some money to the public servant or had attempted to prevail upon him to do something, which is contrary to the law, no case under Section 7-A is sustainable against the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS13 2026:HHC:19004
14. Had prosecution received complaint or adduced evidence on .
record that petitioner herein with a view to get candidate selected in Army, illegally and fraudulently offered some amount to the public servant responsible for selection in the Army, case under Section 7-A of the Act could have been registered against him on the ground that he, with a view to of take undue advantage or influence public servant, attempted to use corrupt practice by offering money, however, there is no such allegation in the FIR rt against the petitioner.
15. Needless to say, demand of illegal gratification is sine qua none to constitute the offence under the Act. Mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, that public servant voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.
16. True it is that it is not necessary that act for which the bribe is given be actually performed, rather representation by a public servant that he has done or will do an act, impliedly, includes a representation that it was all within his power to do that act. In the instant case, petitioner is not a public servant.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS14 2026:HHC:19004
17. To prove case against the petitioner under Section 7-A of the .
Act, prosecution was under obligation to bring on record cogent evidence suggestive of the fact that petitioner had contact with the public servant responsible for making recruitment in the Army and he, after having taken money from the complainant, had further talked/approached or contacted the of public servant qua selection of the persons, who gave him money. In the case at hand, neither any complaint ever came to be made by the public rt servant that petitioner had ever approached him for selecting the certain candidates by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence, nor any evidence qua prior acquaintance of the petitioner with public servant responsible for selection in the Army as well as transaction, if any, interse them, ever came to be adduced on record.
18. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court has no reason to conclude that no case, much less under Section 7-A of the Act, is made out against the petitioner, who admittedly is not a public servant, coupled with the fact that no complaint was ever received by the investigating agency with regard to bribe, if any, demanded by the public servant. Mere recovery of currency may not be sufficient to conclude the guilt, if any, of the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law, rather to bring the case within the ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 15 2026:HHC:19004 ambit of Section 7-A of the Act, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove .
the demand, if any, made by the public servant. In the instant case, neither there is any evidence with regard to such demand nor is there any complaint made by any person alleging demand, if any, made by the petitioner at the behest of any public servant.
of
19. Having scanned contents of the FIR as well as other evidence adduced on record to prove charge under Section 7-A of the Act against the rt petitioner, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that evidence collected on record is not sufficient to connect accused with the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 7-A of the Act and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of trial against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law, rather continuation of the same besides causing mental agony to the petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of process of law
20. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present petition is allowed and FIR No.01 of 2019, dated 06.02.2019, under Section 7-A of the Act, registered at Police Station SV & ACB, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings, if any, pending in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS 16 2026:HHC:19004 competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside. Petitioner is acquitted of .
the charges framed against him in the aforesaid FIR. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.
May 20, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
of
(shankar) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 10:51:05 :::CIS