1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M.M.O. No. 12 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8 .07.2007. ____________________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the petitioner: : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan Advocate. For respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J . (oral) The petitioner, Junior Engineer in CPPWD, seeks to quash the First Information Report No. 5 of 2007 dated 25-5-2007 under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Branch Mandi, on the grounds that the State Vigilance Branch did not comply with the provisions of the State Vigilance Manual in the investigation of the case. The respondent-State has resisted and contested the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was caught red-handed while taking the bribe and the case is being investigated by an officer authorized under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State Vigilance Department was competent to enquire into the matter even as per the vigilance manual which does not Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 in any manner, restricts the powers of the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to enquire into the matter of the employee of the Central Govt. Department. Heard. In brief, facts are that complainant Revati Ram approached the anti corruption branch of Vigilance Department, Mandi and complained that the petitioner was demanding rupees 30,000/- to settle a bill of rupees 5, 63,000/- in his favour. On this complaint, a raiding party was constituted and a trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red-handed receiving the bribe of rupees 30,000/-. Later, he was granted bail by the Special Judge, Mandi on 29.5.2007. The matter is still pending investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged infraction of the previsions of State Vigilance Manual. According to him, the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the State Vigilance Department for inquiry and investigation. Therefore, the F.I.R. be quashed against him. In my view, the learned counsel for the petitioner is belabouring under a mis-conception of law for the reason that the provisions of Vigilance Manual are only the guide-lines in the nature of administrative instructions to be followed and these instructions cannot over-ride the express provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or for that matter, any other statutory provisions of law. Even otherwise, para 8 of the State Vigilance Manual empowers the Vigilance Department to conduct an inquiry, in any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner, and also into any other complaint that a public servant had exercised or refrained 3 from exercising his powers with an improper or corrupt motive and also the complaint of misconduct or lack of integrity or of any malpractices or misdemeanor on the part of a public servant. The perusal of this provision does not make any distinction between the State employee or employee of the Central Government. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage (Please see: Madhavarao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another –v- Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others AIR 1988 Supreme Court 709). The Petitioner was caught red-handed while taking the bribe as alleged. He has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court to quash the F.I.R, within the legal frame- work, accordingly the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 8, 2008. (bm) 4