Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

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   

 

Similar News