Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratibha Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 22 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE.
MCRC No.10558/2017
Indore: Dated:-22.01.2018-
Shri Bhaskar Agarwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Govind Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Arguments heard.
Per: Virender Singh, J.
1. Unsuccessful petitioner in getting quahsment of FIR bearing Crime No.23/2010, dated 07.10.2010, registered at Police Station - Economic Offence Wing, Bhopal in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (MCRC No.11844/2016, Pratibha Parihar vs. Special Police Establishment, order dated 13.02.2017) the petitioner has come before this Court again, but this time for quashing the charges on almost similar grounds taken by her earlier in MCRC No.11844/2016. The grounds taken by the petitioner earlier are mentioned in Para Nos.2 to 5 of the earlier order dated 13.02.2017 passed in MCRC No.11844/2016 which reads thus:-
"2. Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint Crime No.23/2010 was registered at P.S. Economic Offence Wing, Bhopal against Vimal Kumar Gangwal, the then Executive Engineer, Indore Development Authority, Suresh Bhanwar, Sub Engineer, Indore Development Authority and Ashok Jain, Assistant Engineer, Indore Development Authority for the offences under section 13(1)(D), 13(1)(E) and 13(2) of Prevention HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE.
of Corruption Act. During investigation of that crime it was found that Vimal Kumar Gangwal earned many immovable and movable properties by misusing his post by unfair means and deposited unaccounted money in the bank in his name and also in the name of his wife Meena Gangwal, son Nitin Gangwal and second wife present applicant Pratibha Parihar @ Pratibha Gangwal. The legal income of Vimal Kumar Gangwal for the check period from 12.6.1980 to 7.10.2010 from his salary and other sources is Rs.1,25,74,906/- and expenditure is of Rs.1,00,70,012.00 during the same period. While properties worth Rs.1,48,56,008/- were found with them, which is 118% excess from his legal income. It was also inferred by the EOW that movable and immovable property and pecuniary resources found in the possession of his wife Meena Gangwal, son Nitin Gangwal and second wife present applicant Pratibha Parihar @ Pratibha Gangwal actually belong to Vimal Gangwal. So, EOW, Indore filed charge sheet against Vimal Kumar Gangwal, his wife Meena Gangwal, son Nitin Gangwal and second wife present applicant Pratibha Parihar @ Pratibha Gangwal. On that charge-sheet Special Case no.9/16 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is owner of Avishkar Analytical Laboratory, which was set up in the year 1984. petitioner earns profits since 1984 by the earnings of that Laboratory. Petitioner also filed Income-tax returns every year. She also owns agricultural land situated at Daheria, Tehsil Barwaha and earned income from that land. She has no connection with Vimal Kumar Gangwal. She produced all documents of her income before Special Police Establishment, Indore but they wrongly made the applicant an accused in the Crime No.23/2010 without paying attention on those documents.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that properties earned by applicant is from the income of laboratory and agricultural HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE.
land. And Vimal Kumar Gangwal has no connection with it. So there is no question of conspiracy between applicant and Vimal Kumar Gangwal. There is no evidence on record that applicant had obtained income by corrupt practices or unfair means. Therefore, applicant cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the entire case of prosecution is based upon assumptions and presumptions without there being any evidence, because in the FIR applicant was not arrayed as an accused but subsequently her name was included in charge- sheet without any ground. It has been further contended that from the charge sheet prima facie it does not show that money was transferred or gifted to the applicant by Vimal Kumar Gangwal or any member of his family. So there is no prima facie evidence against the applicant to take cognizance for the offence under Section 120-B of IPC and under Prevention of Corruption Act."
2. Now, the petitioner wants to reconsider all those grounds which have already been considered by the learned Division Bench of this Court and decided against her. Neither new ground nor any evidence either oral or documentary could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which had not been considered by the learned Division Bench.
3. We carefully considered the order of the learned Division Bench of this Court and find that there is prima- facie sufficient evidence to frame the charges against the present applicant and learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges against the present applicant. HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of Andhra Pradesh vs. J. Satyanarayana reported in (2017) 6 SCC 628 whereby it is held that income tax return filed much prior to the date of registration of the case can be considered, but in the present case, the same has been considered by the learned trial Court while framing the charges. Therefore, no benefit can be extended on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in the case of J. Satyanarayana (Supra).
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed being sans merit.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
Digitally signed
by Amit Kumar
Date: 2018.02.07
12:20:08 -08'00'