HC Completely Ignored Evidence Indicating Complicity: SC Restores Corruption Case Against Police Officer
|The Supreme Court restored a corruption case against a police officer, stating that the Karnataka High Court had completely ignored material evidence which surfaced during the investigation, indicating complicity.
The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer accused of accepting bribe under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (the Act) and restored the subject matter of the FIR lodged against him on corruption charges.
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale observed, “The approach adopted by the Courts in quashing the FIR in the attending facts and circumstances, is legally unsustainable. It ventured into an inquiry, unwarranted at this stage, holding that there is no direct evidence that the present respondent had demanded any money and that there was no material to proceed against him, completely forgetting, if not ignoring the material which had surfaced during the course of investigation, amongst others, the pendrive, allegedly, indicating his complicity in the crime.”
Sr. Advocate P.V. Dinesh represented the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Shailesh Madiyal appeared for the respondents.
The Appellant challenged the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR, which stemmed from a complaint filed by the appellant's wife alleging sexual harassment of their minor child. Subsequently, it was claimed that the investigating police officer demanded and accepted monetary consideration from the appellant. In response to the ongoing demands for bribery, the appellant brought evidence, including a pendrive, to the attention of the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, leading to the registration of the FIR under the Act.
The High Court had held that a police inspector, who had been cleared of charges in a departmental inquiry, could not be re-investigated on bribery charges. Consequently, the judge quashed the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC noting a lack of direct evidence and dismissed the criminal proceedings against the officer by the ACB Lokayukta Police.
The Supreme Court pointed out that “two persons were named as accused whereas the petition for quashing was preferred only by one of the accused, namely, Jairaj.”
The Court further stated that the High Court “failed to account for the principles enunciated by this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) SCC Suppl.1 335.”
The Court explained that the High Court “ventured” into an inquiry, unwarranted at that stage and incorrectly held that there was no direct evidence that the other police officer had demanded any money.
“We may also observe that it was the pleaded case of the Lokayukta before the High Court that the continuance of the trial was not on the very same evidence as what weighed with the authorities in exonerating the employee in the departmental proceedings. This fact, also appears not to have been considered by the High Court in its correct perspective,” the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sanju Rajan Nayar v. Jayaraj & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 331)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate P.V. Dinesh; AOR P. S. Sudheer; Advocates Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Anna Oommen and Miranda Solaman
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Shailesh Madiyal; AOR Mahesh Thakur and V. N. Raghupathy; Advocates Vaibhav Sabharwal, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Anusha R., Mythili Srinivasamurthy, Divija Mahajan, Sunidhi Hegde, Manendra Pal Gupta, Prakash Jadhav, Ravichandra Jadhav, Sanjeev Kumar, S. Shashank Reddy, Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Dhanesh Ieshdhan, Md. Apzal Ansari and Sanjay Kumar Paliwal