Crl. Misc. No. M – 35255 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 35255 of 2009 Date of decision:- 10.3.2010 Govind Velabh Joshi ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner Govind Velabh Joshi, has come up with the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing FIR No. 30 dated 18.12.2008 registered under Sections 7, 13(2), 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. According to the petitioner, he was working as Manager of Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Jalandhar. False FIR has been registered against him. There was no question of demanding Rs.1 lakh from the complainant for promoting him as the Bank codified the policy for promotion from sub-staff to clerical cadre. He was not concerned with/opposed to the appointment of the complainant as gunman and was not vested with any powers for recruitment, termination or promotions. There was no motive on his part to make such a demand as he was even not the recommending authority. No person can be promoted as a Clerk only after seven days of service as Gunman. The allegations in the FIR are vague. No Crl. Misc. No. M – 35255 of 2009 -2- money was ever recovered from his possession. He was never found in conscious possession of the alleged money. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are vague and no such offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, is made out therefrom. The petitioner was not the competent authority for promoting the complainant as Clerk and is highly improbable that the complainant would pay any such gratification for promotion only after seven days of the service as gunman. The tainted money was never recovered from the possession of the petitioner. No offence is made out from the contents of the FIR, and the same is liable to be quashed. For proper appreciation of the matter, the FIR is reproduced below:- “Statement of Shri Paramjit Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Pudain, P.S. Hambran, District. Ludhiana, aged about 44 years. I hereby state that I am resident of above noted address. I have retired from Sikh Regiment Force as pensioner in the year 2003. The Union Bank of India, Regional Office Jalandhar, had obtained my name and address from District Sainik Office, Ludhiana for my enrolement as Gunman. I had received letter from Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Shastri Market, Jalandhar on dated 12.11.2008 according to which, I was called by Bank for Crl. Misc. No. M – 35255 of 2009 -3- interview on 19.11.2008 at Jalandhar. I have passed in the interview conducted by Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Jalandhar and selected at the post of Gun Man. After that on dated 10.12.2008, I received a phone call on my mobile phone from Shri Gobin Vallabh Joshi, Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Jalandhar who told me to meet him in the Regional Office, Jalandhar on 11.12.2008. Then I on 11.12.2008 reached at the office of Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Jalandhar. On reaching there, I met Shri Gobind Vallabh Joshi, Manager, who told me that I have selected you as Gun Man, regarding which I am handing over you the appointment letter. This appointment letter has never been issued by me to any person without receiving Bribe. That I have given this appointment letter to you free. After this Shri Gobind Vallabh Joshi enticed me that after this, he would at the earliest get me promoted as Clerk. I would do this provided you will give me bribe of Rs.1 lac. If you would not give me Rs.1 lac as bribe, then I would terminate your services from the post of Gunman, I being afraid repeated by requested to the said Manager Shri Gobind Vallabh Joshi and said that I am a poor person, I cannot give this huge money. On my request Shri Gobind Vallabh agreed to accept Rs.55000/-. At the moment, I took the pretext that I was not having so much money and demanded time of 6/7 days from him for the arrangement of money. Then on my request the said Crl. Misc. No. M – 35255 of 2009 -4- Manager told me that you would have arranged the money and meet me on 18.12.2008 at about 8 PM near the Main Gate of Gurdwara Singh Sabha Phase-I, Jalandhar and after reaching there, give me phone call, I myself would come at the main Gate of Gurdwara Sahib and shall collect the bribe amount from you. I told Shri Gobind Vallabh Joshi that I shall give you this bribe amount in two installments to which the Manager agreed to take the amount in two installments. After this, so many phone calls have been made by Gobind Vallabh Joshi on my mobile phone regarding which I have also got prepared a CD which I shall give you later on mobile No. is 094176-43257. I have arranged Rs.35,000/- to give Shri Gobind Vallabh Joshi, Manager as bribe. I do not want to give bribe. So I have come present alongwith Jaswant Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of Pudian, P.S.Hambran, District Ludhiana for giving information at your office at Ludhiana, to take legal against Shri Gobind Vallabh Joshi, Manager." It is very much clear from the bare reading of the FIR that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh as illegal gratification for getting the complainant promoted as clerk at the earliest and after negotiations he agreed to accept Rs.55000/-. As per the police proceedings recorded on that FIR seventy currency notes of Rs.500/- each were handed over to the complainant for handing over the same to the petitioner, on demand. It is not of much relevance if the petitioner was competent to promote the Crl. Misc. No. M – 35255 of 2009 -5- complainant or not. It is to be seen by this Court if on the face of the facts as disclosed in the FIR some offence is made out against the petitioner or not. The disputed facts are not to be gone into while deciding this petition. It is also to be seen by this Court if the FIR appears to be free from any malice on the part of the complainant. While determining whether any offence is made out from the contents of the FIR, it is to be read as such, without any addition or substraction of the facts therefrom. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is clearly made out against the petitioner. There is nothing to suggest that there was any malice on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner. No ground for quashing the FIR is made out and the petition is hereby dismissed. March 10, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge