Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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