Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Anil Kumar Dharendra S/O Sh. … vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:27780]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7999/2023
Anil Kumar Dharendra S/o Sh. Satyanarayan, Resident Of House
No. 163, Near Aadrash Vidhya Mandir School, Police Station
Town Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Retd. Senior Police
Medical).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Sh. Sundar Singh S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Resident Of
Village Bagla, Police Station And Tehsil-Mandi Aadampur,
District- Hissar (Haryana).
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on: 04/07/2025
Pronounced on: 25/07/2025
1. By virtue of the present petition, filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a challenge is raised
against the order dated 18.09.2023, passed by the Court of
Special Judge-Prevention of Corruption Act No. 2, Jaipur Metro II
in F.I.R. No. 191/2023 whereby cognizance has been taken
against the petitioner as well as the co-accused for the offences
under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Moreover, vide order
impugned dated 18.09.2023, directions have also been issued to
the Director General, Anti-Corruption for conducting further
investigation in the alleged offence by an officer of the rank of
Additional Superintendent of Police or higher, for determining the
role of the public servants of RPSC or any other institution.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
2. Prior to penning down the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this
Court deems it appropriate to take a brief note of the factual
matrix of the instant matter, crucial for the fair analysis of the lis
at hand. The concise facts, are noted herein-under:-
2.1 That on 07.07.2023, the complainant/respondent no.2
i.e. Mr. Sundar Singh, submitted a written report before the
concerned Police Station stating that the nephew of the
complainant, namely Vikas, appeared in the recruitment
examination of E.O./R.O., conducted by RPSC in the Year 2023.
During this time, the petitioner/accused, who happened to be an
acquaintance of the complainant, demanded an amount to the
tune of Rs. 40 lakh for ensuring his nephew’s selection in the
recruitment process by changing the OMR Sheet, at the behest of
the RPSC Chairman/Member, namely Manju Sharma.
2.2 That pursuant to receiving the aforesaid complaint, the
D.S.P. Anti-Corruption Bureau Sikar got its contents verified,
following which, a trap was conducted at Sikar and Jaipur. As a
result, recovery was effectuated from the petitioner/accused along
with other co-accused.
2.3 That on completion of the investigation, the Anti-
Corruption Bureau Sikar, submitted a report under Section 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-
Corruption, Jaipur Metro II against the petitioner/accused and the
co-accused Braham Prakash, Ravindra Sharma and Gopal Kesawat
for the offense under Section 420 and 120B of the IPC.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
2.4 That subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid
report, one Hardeep Singh Sunderia (Advocate) filed an
application before the court under Sections 190, 156 and 173(8)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Simultaneously, another
application was preferred by the co-accused Gopal Kesawat for
dropping the proceedings citing incompetent jurisdiction.
2.5 That after analyzing the said applications, vide order
impugned dated 18.09.2023, the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption
took cognizance against the four accused, including the petitioner,
for having committed offences under Section 7A of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120 of the IPC. Additionally,
directions were also issued for conducting further investigation, by
an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of
Police, for determining the role of public servants of the RPSC in
the alleged offences.
2.6 That having been aggrieved of the order impugned
dated 18.09.2023, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition
seeking relief in the form of quashing of proceedings pending
against the petitioner in the court of Special Judge-Prevention of
Corruption Act, Metro II Jaipur arising from F.I.R. No. 191/2023
lodged at Pradhan Police Station, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, whilst being
aggrieved of the order impugned dated 18.09.2023, has
submitted that the same was passed on an application preferred
under Sections 190, 156 and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by one Hardeep Singh Sunderia (Advocate), who is not
a complainant in the case. Therefore, he had no locus standi to file
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
the said application in the matter and resultantly, the learned
Special Judge has committed grave illegality in entertaining and
deciding the application preferred by Mr. Hardeep Singh Sunderia.
In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated that the sole complainant in the instant
proceedings was Mr. Sunder Singh only, as is evident from his
signatures on all relevant documents during the investigation
conducted by the concerned authorities.
4. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner also
submitted that the petitioner, along with the co-accused in the
matter, are private individuals who do not hold any position in
government office(s). Therefore, by the virtue of not being a
public servant, the petitioner ought not to be tried for the alleged
offense by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, as the latter
lacks jurisdiction to do the same. Lastly, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the learned Special Judge, by virtue of
Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, can only
preside in the trial of those offenses as specifically mentioned
under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988. However, since the report submitted by the investigation
authorities under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
only prima facie made out offences under Sections 420 and 120B
of IPC, trial by the Special Judge lacks jurisdiction, especially
when the evidence collected during investigation makes it
abundantly clear that the petitioner did not try to obtain any
undue advantage to induce a public servant.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
5. Therefore, relying upon the said submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner conclusively prayed that the order
impugned dated 18.09.2023 be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
strongly opposed the contentions put forth by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and submitted that the order impugned dated
18.09.2023 has been passed after duly taking into consideration
the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is warranted
with the order impugned dated 18.09.2023. Furthermore, learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 7A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 makes it abundantly clear that
an offence under the said provision can be committed not only by
a public servant, but also a private person or a combination of the
two. Therefore, the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for
the petitioner lack merit and as a result, the instant petition ought
to be dismissed at the threshold.
7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for both the sides and scanned the record of the
instant petition.
8. It is trite law that the exercise of powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, Cr.P.C.) is an
exception and not the Rule and it is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of
which alone Courts exist.
9. In consonance with the underlying aim of the provision,
it is established law that if a FIR and the materials collected in
furtherance of which disclose a cognizable offense and the final
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
report filed under Section 173(2) or 173(8), depending on
whether further investigation was conducted, reveals that the
ingredients to constitute the offense as alleged are prima facie
made out against the accused, then in such an eventuality, the
truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence so
collected shall not be matters falling within the purview of exercise
of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and consequently, they shall
undoubtedly be matters to be dealt with by the learned trial court
at the time of the trial. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon
the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Criminal
Appeal No. 1874/2022 titled as State of Maharashtra and
Ors. vs. Maroti decided on 02.11.2022.
10. Therefore, in order to assess the contentions put forth by the
petitioner in furtherance of the prayer for quashing the criminal
proceedings against him altogether, this Court is duty bound to
assess whether the learned Special Judge whilst passing the
impugned order dated 18.09.2023, duly took into consideration
the ingredients of Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 (hereinafter, Act of 1988) and their prima facie applicability
qua the petitioner, in sync with the evidence so presented on
record.
11. For ready reference, Section 7A of the Act of 1988 is
reproduced herein-under:-
“7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public
servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise
of personal influence
Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from
another person for himself or for any other person any(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a
public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by
exercise of his personal influence to perform or to
cause performance of a public duty improperly or
dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such
public duty by such public servant or by another public
servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three years but
which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine.”
12. Having perused through the wording of the provision, it
is imperative to note that Section 7A of the Act of 1988, as it
stands today, was inserted into the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018
vide Notification No. SO3664(E) in order to further codify law
specifically dealing with scenarios where an individual, regardless
of whether or not they are public servants, accepts or obtains or
attempts to accept or obtain any undue advantage as a motive or
reward to induce a public servant to improperly or dishonestly
perform or refrain from performing a public duty. Therefore, it is
assertively discernible that Section 7A of the Act of 1988 stands as
a natural extension of Section 7 of the Act of 1988 which further
broadens the umbrella to include not only public servants under
the scope of the Act, but also individuals who adopt unfair means
to an unfair end, at the behest of and/or for a public servant in a
position to assert unfair methods for their personal gratification.
13. Therefore, it is clear that while Section 7 stipulates the
public servant directly taking a bribe, Section 7A broadens its
scope to include those individuals influencing a public servant
through improper means, which naturally includes within its ambit
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
even those non-public servants, who intend to induce a public
servant to perform their duty improperly with the greed/incentive
of an undue advantage. Hence, it is unequivocally clear that any
individual, regardless of their position as a public servant or not,
can be charged with an offense under Section 7A of the Act of
1988, as long as the allegation of inducement is evidenced, as
required by law.
14. Accordingly, having established the fact that the status
of the petitioner/accused i.e. Mr. Anil Kumar Dharendra as a non-
public servant is irrelevant for escaping the scrutiny attracted by
the provisions of Section 7A of the Act of 1988, this Court now
must assess whether any due rationale was adopted by the
learned Special Judge for taking cognizance against the petitioner
under the said provision, without going into the correctness or
truthfulness of the allegations levelled, which lies outside the
narrow scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as defined in Maroti
(Supra).
15. Upon an assiduous scrutiny of the order impugned
dated 18.09.2023, the following pertinent facts have come to
light, namely:-
(i) That the initial charge-sheet in the matter was
prepared against the petitioner/accused along with the co-accused
under Section 420 and 120B of IPC after the accused’s mobile
phones, conversations, memory cards were retrieved and sent for
FSL for extracting their harsh value and for extracting the
Whatsapp chats and calls, including those deleted. However, whilst
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]the said charge-sheet was prepared, the FSL report determining
the said chats/calls of the accused was awaited.
(ii) That the investigation report on record, makes it
abundantly clear that the complainant Sunder Singh and Mr.
Hardeep Singh, who is claimed to be a non-party by the petitioner,
jointly lodged a complaint in the ACB, wherein it was averred that
the petitioner/accused had demanded Rs. 40 lakhs for their
relative Vikas to get selected in the recruitment for E.O./R.O. The
said complaint was in the handwriting of Mr. Sunder Singh, which
was presented by Mr. Hardeep Singh.
(iii) That the averments incorporated in the complaint so
presented by the parties were verified during investigation by the
ACB, and the facts of the complaint were found to be true.
Thereafter, due trap proceedings were conducted by TLO on
14.07.2023 and the complainant Sundar Singh and his nephew
Vikas were trapped for giving a bribe of Rs. 18.50 lakh to the
accused/petitioner Anil Kumar Dharendra at HDFC Bank Sikar.
Moreover, during interrogation, as is placed on record, it was
further revealed that the said amount was to be further given by
the accused/petitioner i.e. Mr. Anil Kumar Dharendra to one Gopal
Keshav through Ravindra Sharma. Therefore, steps were taken to
trap Ravindra Sharma, who was the mediator of Gopal Keshav,
through the petitioner Anil Kumar Dharendra. Accordingly, the role
of the accused/petitioner was duly established by the trap
proceedings conducted by the ACB in furtherance of a larger
criminal conspiracy along with the co-accused.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
(iv) That the order impugned, so far as the issuance of
directions for further investigation of the RPSC officers is
concerned, has categorically recorded the fact that pursuant to the
lodging of the FIR against the petitioner/accused as well as the co-
accused on 16.07.2023 under Section 7A of the Act of 1988, on
the same day, the Additional Director General of ACB held a press
conference and told that no role of any RPSC member has come to
light, which to this Court is absurd and shocking, as the
investigation had not even been conducted yet, which is clear
from the fact that the investigator only received the file the next
day i.e. on 17.07.2023. Therefore, the circumstances within which
the Additional Director General of ACB brushed off the
involvement of any RPSC member, without any investigation into
the matter at all, seemed murky and therefore, further
investigation was deemed necessary to further assess and connect
the trap findings of the recoveries effectuated from the
accused/petitioner and the co-accused with the members of the
RPSC.
16. Therefore, in light of the foregoing findings recorded by
the learned Special Judge in the order impugned dated
18.09.2023, the learned Special Judge took cognizance against
the petitioner/accused and the co-accused for hatching a criminal
conspiracy, as revealed by the trap proceedings, for getting the
selection of the complainant’s nephew in the E.O/R.O. recruitment
examination. Moreover, as far as the involvement of RPSC officer
was concerned, at whose behest the unfair advantage was
promised, in order to ascertain that especially after having taken
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27780] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-7999/2023]
note of the lack of investigation conducted by the by ACP qua
RPSC members, as exhibited above, the learned Special Judge
directed further investigation in sync with the dictum of the
Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Criminal Appeal No.
1685/2007 titled as Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP and Anr.,
wherein it was held that a magistrate, on receiving an application
under Section 156, as is filed in the present case by Mr. Hardeep
Singh, when satisfied that proper investigation has not been done
by the concerned authorities, can issue directions for conducting
further and proper investigation, in order to satisfy the tenets of
justice.
17. Hence, in light of the following observations read with
the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, as noted
above, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. deems it fit to refrain itself from interfering with the order
impugned dated 18.09.2023, as the same has been passed after
having duly considered the elaborate evidence on record and any
interference, which shall prevent the said evidence from seeing
the light of the day before the learned Special Judge during trial,
shall not be an exercise done to secure the interests of
comprehensive justice.
18. Accordingly, in light of the following observations, this
Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the present petition.
19. As a result, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /222
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:57:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)