Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

High Court Quashes FIR Against Bribery Case Complainant for Want of Sanction: Poor Complainant Cannot Be Burdened for Giving Consent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has quashed the FIR lodged against Ajaib Singh, the complainant in a bribery case, under Section 182 IPC, citing the absence of necessary sanction for prosecution. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, emphasized that the complainant could not be unfairly penalized for not opposing the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency.

The case, CRM-M-26485-2016, revolved around allegations of bribery in the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. Ajaib Singh, along with his clerk Vijay Kumar, was accused of providing false information to the authorities. However, the High Court observed that the competent authority had refused to grant sanction for their prosecution, which is a prerequisite in such cases.

In his landmark judgment, Justice Chitkara noted, "In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, even if all the allegations levelled in the Kalandra are accepted on their face value, it cannot be said that the petitioner-complainant had given false information qua the crime." This observation was pivotal in the decision to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.

Further elaborating on the role of the competent authority, the Court remarked, "If anybody had disrupted the criminal prosecution, it would have been the competent authority as well as the investigating agency itself and not the petitioner-complainant who had merely not opposed such cancellation."

The judgment is a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to legal prerequisites in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases of corruption. It underscores the necessity of obtaining proper sanction before proceeding with prosecution and highlights the dangers of penalizing individuals without sufficient legal basis.

Justice Chitkara’s decision provides significant relief to Ajaib Singh and reinforces the legal safeguards against wrongful prosecution. The ruling is seen as a step forward in protecting the rights of complainants in corruption cases and ensuring that legal procedures are followed meticulously.

Date of Decision: 22.01.2024

AJAIB SINGH & ANOTHER VS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER   

 

Latest Legal News