Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Sharma v. State Of Haryana
!"#"
$%&' '
%()'*'*'*+,
! "
#$ %&'& ($ " )" * '& + ,$ ) %
* ) '*'*+, -'./ - , & ./0$ 10/ '
2" $ " +& 3420. 56-5050." 778
-6// !
+ 2 ! 3# & '
*
0 , 34 $" + & + + "
&9 & $ + 34 8 "To The Superintendent of Police AntiCorruption Bureau, Rohtak Respected Sir, I humbly submit that I, Anand Singh, son of Shri Chandram, am a permanent resident of House No. 846 AP, Sector 4, Rohtak. We own a 160squareyard shop in Model Town, Rohtak, which is registered in my mother's name Smt. Kitabo. My mother wished to execute a transfer deed in my name, for which we applied at the Tehsil Office, Rohtak, on 27.09.2024, and we were issued Token No. 093270920240 24055000. During this process, I met Manjeet, a registry clerk at the Tehsil office, who demanded a bribe from me for executing the transfer deed. He stated that the deed would not be processed unless the bribe was paid. When I refused to pay, he threw away our documents.
The next day, on 28.09.2024, I went to the office of Naib Tehsildar Praveen Sharma to file a complaint regarding this incident. However, Praveen Sharma justified the demand for a bribe and also asked me for money. He further told me that his associate Sahil handles such matters, and I should meet him, as he would ensure that my work gets done. When I met Sahil at the Tehsil office, he told me that normally, the cost of getting the transfer deed processed is Rs.3,00,000, but he would arrange it for Rs.2,00,000.
& Manjeet and the Naib Tehsildar to approve the transfer. On 04.10.2024, I again met Naib Tehsildar Praveen Sharma in his office, where he reiterated that I should coordinate with Manjeet and Sahil for the transfer deed and directed me to send Sahil to his office. Upon my request, Sahil went to meet Naib Tehsildar Praveen Sharma in his office. After coming out, he demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,80,000 from me for processing the transfer deed, stating that the entire amount would be distributed among the Naib Tehsildar and his associates and that he himself would receive only Rs. 10,000Rs.20,000 from it. Under pressure and distress, I paid Rs. 10,000 in advance as a bribe to Sahil at that moment. I also recorded the entire conversation on my mobile phone, which I will later submit to you by transferring the audio recording onto a pen drive. I do not wish to pay the remaining bribe amount to Sahil and instead want him to be caught redhanded. I request legal action to be taken against them.
Complainant:
Anand Singh, Son of Shri Chandram House No. 846 AP, Sector 4, Rohtak Mobile No.: 7056232140". : " 34 & ! 9 8;#+$
, "" & - 555<8$ &$
8 + & = ++ $ $ $ +< & 8 $ 4
& '
. = & " + & &" $" -55;-667&&&" $ $ $ + ) $&& 8" "> 34 $ $ +"
? &@ -78 , 34$
+& 778 $ $ + &&"
8 = & $
34 +" A <" + $ ? &@
-78 & " & $& &$&$+ B+& % "
' &&+ &
" 8
7 78 -:!-#!+# -:!0# $ +" A -6 $"& "> = & $ && +$
8 $ $ $&& & , ++ $ &&"& + 8 & ++
& && $"&$ 56-5050.-5-5050.
$ $ ++$&&"&+ & 8 $ & $ " + $ & & $ && ++ ! 9 8;# $ $ +& + + & $ & ++ & 1 = & +$ :1!:#'2
$ && $ & % "
4
:1!-#!+#!#'2
A & .-!-#!+#!#
& &&$ &$$ &&"&&$ &&$" &$ ; C & & & + +& & " & + + D &" 34! 9 80# & & + 07<0/56050.
& " ++ $ + $ $ "2+, &, &C "5.-5050.
&
$ & & $ % + 8 & & "
& ++- /5 555<8 & " && $&&++ " 2+, & &$ & &-5 555<8 05 555<8 , $& ++ + & $ + " , $ &&& & (
& ! 9 8;# $ && &
" $ ( & ! 9 8;# &&+ & $ & & -5 555<8 05 555<8 & + $
:1!:# '2
$ && % " + + "+ & &&"&&&+ & &" $ A $ & ( & $ + && " $ & % , "$ " & " + 7 4 & + + & & && / 4 + & 34 ! 9 80# & "9 ++"
5 &( & & &> ++ , & &$& &$ &"$ ++ $+ & , " " &$ && +" 8 , && +" & +&&$ "
-6 + " & "> + $"& + 4 $ & 8 " &+ &
$ $ + "
$ " &&"
8 4 & $ % "
$ + + $+ "
&" && &&" +++ 8 & ( ! 9 8;#+$ &$ + & && $ ++ $ + 8 &$ "
$ & "++
&
6
&& + + & & &" A -78
++ "" , B+& &
!
"# $%&&&$8 "33. The contention that prior approval of investigation, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained and thus, the proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 1 stand vitiated, has no legal or factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage.
34. As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap
and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature. The investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any previous approval of the Central Government. That apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around any recommendations made or decisions taken by him in his quasi−judicial or administrative capacity". -5 " $ &&" & && " " &$&$+ B+& $ "" +&
&" +& -- 3" + -0 , ++ + & & & +&& && + 9 &' '
.'*'*+,1 < " E<2 D +& E<2