Prem Chand v. State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-43001-2023 2023:PHHC:113604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.43001 of 2023 Date of Decision: 29.08.2023 Prem Chand ...PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 27.03.2023 ACB, Karnal, 7 of PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act, District AnƟ1988 (SecƟons 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of CorrupƟon Bureau, PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act and Haryana SecƟons 186, 353 and 384 IPC added later on).

1.

Seeking quashing of above capƟoned FIR, the peƟƟoner, who is arraigned as an accused for demanding and accepƟng bribe of Rs.50,000/- for giving clearance of audit with regard to work of Municipal CommiƩee, Garuanda, has come up before this Court.

2.

The complainant, who was working as a Civil Engineer in the office of Municipal CommiƩee, Garuanda informed the Inspector, AnƟ-CorrupƟon Bureau, Panchkula that Prem Chand, who is Auditor/RO of the Audit Team of Accountant General, Haryana is demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to give clearance of audit of the work done by him. He is pressurizing him to make a bad audit report if he did not fulfill his demand. Based on this, a trap was laid and the peƟƟoner was arrested red handed. 3.

Firstly, counsel for the peƟƟoner has argued that the peƟƟoner was not competent to audit because it was the work of team, as such, the enƟre complaint is fabricated. Second, leg of argument of the counsel for the peƟƟoner is that there are contradicƟon in the complaint, statements of the witnesses recorded under SecƟons 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and counsel also pointed out some discrepancies from the record. JYOTI 2023.09.02 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-43001-2023 2023:PHHC:113604 4.

Counsel for the peƟƟoner further argued that there is a contradicƟon qua recovery, possession of money and there is delay of 10 days in tesƟng the soluƟon. Counsel for the peƟƟoner has further argued that the peƟƟoner had obtained the call details and the complainant did not make any phone call about the complaint on the toll-free number.

5.

Argument addressed by the counsel for the peƟƟoner is baseless because it is a case of trap. In corrupƟon cases, its normally the person who demands money is responsible but possibiliƟes of the bribe money being shared by various people who deal with the file might also have their share. However, in this case allegaƟons are against the peƟƟoner of demand and lateron, he was caught red handed. This Court cannot analyze the evidence which is yet to be proved and even otherwise, without giving an opportunity to the witnesses to explain the discrepancies during the trial, it shall be unjust for this Court to comment on their credibility at their back. 6.

Recovery and possession of recovered money and its trail from complainant to accused is a maƩer of evidence. As concern for delay on tesƟng of soluƟon, once the laboratory finds the sufficient evidence, the only grouse which remains is only qua tempering which needs cross-examinaƟon. Whether the complainant had made a call on the toll-free number or a regular number or a whatsapp call is all subject to his cross-examinaƟon and this Court cannot draw a conclusion of such facts even before the stage of evidence. All the points raised by the peƟƟoner are required to be proved by way of evidence by prosecuƟon and this Court cannot comment or analysis this in peƟƟon under SecƟon 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, there is no ground for quashing of FIR at this stage.

7.

Given above, there is no merit in the present peƟƟon and the same is dismissed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.08.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

JYOTI 2023.09.02 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.