1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1369/2002 Durga Prasad Bhardwaj Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 2. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1168/2001 Hemant Kumar Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 3. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1169/2001 Shyam Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 4. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1184/2001 Ram Swaroop Arya Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 5. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1211/2001 Smt Prem Jain Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 6. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1279/2001 Smt Kamini Sogani Vs The DG, ACB, Jaipur & ors 7. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1280/2001 Babu Lal Vs The DG, ACB, Jaipur & ors 8. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1339/2001 Anjani Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 9. SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1340/2001 Dharam Chand Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 16.3.2010 Hon'ble Mr Justice MN Bhandari Dr PC Jain Mr RK Jain – for petitioners Mr GS Fauzdar - PP for the State BY THE COURT: Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been claimed, all the above misc petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2 By these misc petitions filed under section 482 CrPC, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIRs. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that FIRs have been lodged in regard to corruption in purchase of “gur”. This was precisely for the reason that the complainant was having enmity with one Mr Ajeet Singh Yadav, the then Regional Dy Director, Women & Child Development Department, Bharatpur. As many as nine FIRs were lodged in respect of purchase of “gur” at different places which were under Regional Dy Director. Allegations in all the FIRs were same. Out of nine FIRs lodged, accused were discharged in regard to five FIRs. The State Government preferred revision petitions against order of discharge however they were also dismissed by this court vide order passed on 17.3.2009 in SB Cr Revision Petitions No.421/2003, 422/2003, 446/2003, 494/2003 and 44/2005. Case of the petitioners is similar as nothing was found against accused in the connected matters. In these cases, main allegation is regarding purchase of “gur” on higher price. The purchase was made pursuant to the tender thus same was not made on higher price. Even at relevant time when same product was purchased by jail authorities it was 3 on higher rates. The quality of product is one of the factors which determines the rate. At the relevant time rate of above produce was varying from Rs.6/- to Rs.11/- per kilogram. Looking to aforesaid, no offence is made out from bare perusal of FIRs. It is only to take revenge from Mr Ajeet Singh Yadav that the complainant lodged all above FIRs. The court below in connected matters has taken note of all aspects and discharged the accused petitioners and High Court had confirmed the same taking note of all the above facts and circumstances. Nothing more survive herein. Thus FIRs may be quashed more so when it was lodged in the year 1999 and more than 10 years have elapsed thereafter. Learned PP, on the other hand, opposed the petitions and submits that FIRs may not be quashed. If the petitioners have strong case they can be discharged on hearing the matter at the stage of framing of charges. It is however not disputed that in all nine FIRs were lodged on same allegations and in five cases accused have been discharged. The order of discharge was later on confirmed by this court. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. 4 Bare perusal of FIRs reveal that allegation against all petitioners are regarding purchase of “gur” on higher price. Same issue was taken into consideration while hearing others matters on framing of charges. Accused therein were discharged by the trial court and the orders of discharge have been confirmed by this court. This is in relation to same period and the area which was under Mr Ajeet Singh Yadav. Looking to aforesaid and also some rivalry of the complainant with Mr Ajeet Singh Yadav, it comes out that all the FIRs have been lodged. Since no case is made our from bare perusal of the FIRs and otherwise matter has already been considered by the coordinate Bench while hearing revision petitions preferred by the State Government against order of discharge nothing more required to be adjudicated upon. In view of discussion made above, I am inclined to accept these misc petitions. Accordingly all the misc petitions are allowed and FIRs in reference to all the petitions are accordingly quashed and proceedings thereunder are ordered to be dropped. (MN Bhandari)J. bnsharma