Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Chandra Kant Ramawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33529) on 29 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:33529]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5866/2025
Chandra Kant Ramawat S/o Shri Badri Das Ramawat, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o Ramdev Colony, Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
Mr. Mangi Lal Rathore, A.S.P., Chowki
Jalore, A.C.B.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
REPORTABLE
29/07/2025
1. By way of filing instant criminal misc. petition under Section
528 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the
impugned F.I.R. No.349/2022 registered at Police Station ACB
Jodhpur, and further consequential proceedings pursuant to
impugned FIR may kindly be quashed and set-aside.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Brijesh Meena filed a
complaint on 02.09.2022 before Additional Superintendent of
Police, A.C.B. (Special Unit), Jodhpur alleging inter alia that the
present petitioner and the principal of Kasturba Awasiya School,
Ummedabad namely Khusbhoo Gehlot, have demanded
gratification to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to settle a complaint
received against the complainant in a particular manner. The
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33529] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-5866/2025]
officials of A.C.B. thereupon, initiated trap proceedings and caught
Khusbhoo Gehlot red handed. The petitioner was later on, arrested
by the officials of A.C.B.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel
submitted that while the petitioner was holding the post of
Coordinator, he was asked to conduct inquiry in relation to a
complaint submitted against the complainant in the present case
namely Brijesh Meena. Learned counsel contended that the
allegation of demand of gratification levelled against the petitioner
is absolutely false as the inquiry report in relation to
aforementioned complaint was completed by the petitioner on
27.08.2022 and report had been submitted before District
Collector, Jalore prior to the date of trap proceedings conducted by
the officials of A.C.B. Learned counsel further submitted that as a
matter of fact, the petitioner was transferred on 26.08.2022 from
the post of Assistant Project Coordinator Jalore to Bikaner much
before the date on which the trap proceedings were conducted.
4. Learned counsel while drawing attention of the Court towards
statutory provisions of Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption
(Amended) Act, 2018 (for short ‘The P.C. Act, 2018‘) submitted
that since the petitioner was not caught red handed and the fact
that the allegation against him relates to a
recommendation/decision taken on a complaint submitted against
complainant- Brijesh Meena, no police officer could have
conducted any enquiry, inquiry and investigation against the
petitioner without prior approval of the concerned competent
authority.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33529] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-5866/2025]
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that in the present case,
the entire investigation has been conducted by a police official of
the rank of Inspector which is not in consonance with the scheme
of the P.C. Act, 2018. Furthermore, Section 17 of the P.C. Act,
2018 mandates that investigation shall be conducted by a police
officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Therefore, the impugned FIR and further proceedings in relation to
thereto are liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed
reliance on the following judgments passed by this Court and
Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India:-
(1) Rajesh Kumar Meel v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No.307/2023 dated 09.09.2024.
(2) Mahendra Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No.281/2023 dated 28.08.2024.
(3) Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb)
No.2556/2023 dated 16.08.2024.
(4) Sourabh Garg v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.6337/2021 dated 27.01.2022.
(5) Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
in Criminal Misc. Petition No.159/2018 dated 07.04.2020.
(6) Ranidan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.1219/2022 dated 08.10.2024.
(7) Himanshu Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.17545/2021 dated 19.01.2022.
(8) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary in Criminal Appeal
No.1647/2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4818/2021.
(9) State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram
Kurri in Criminal Appeal No.1335/2004 decided on
24.08.2006.
(10) Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Ors. reported in (2020)2 SCC 338.
(11) Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh arising
out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.12289/2023 decided on 16.01.2024.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33529] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-5866/2025]
7. Per contra, learned Public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the instant criminal petition. Learned Public Prosecutor
has placed reliance on the following judgments passed by this
Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India:-
(1) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani & Anr. in
Criminal Appeal No.1148/2023 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No.295/2023.
(2) Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.427/2022 vide order dated 18.02.2022.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the
case diary made available to this Court by the Investigating
Officer.
9. Section 17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018 reads as under:-
“17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of
offences relatable to recommendations made or
decision taken by public servant in discharge of
official functions or duties.- No police officer shall
conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into
any offence alleged to have been committed by a
public servant under this Act, where the alleged
offence is relatable to any recommendation made or
decision taken by such public servant in discharge of
his official functions or duties, without the previous
approval-
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at
the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of
that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at
the time when the offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that
Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office, at the time when
the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be
necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on
the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to
accept any undue advantage for himself or for any
other person:
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33529] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-5866/2025]
Provided further that the concerned authority shall
convey its decision under this section within a period of
three months, which may for reasons to be recorded in
writing by such authority, be extended by a further period
of one month.”
[emphasis supplied]
10. From the perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the
conversation between co-accused Khushboo Gehlot and petitioner
regarding her accepting the gratification, on her own behalf as
well as on behalf of the petitioner, has been recorded. The said
telephonic evidence prima facie indicates the complicitness of the
petitioner in commission of the alleged crime which is something
more than a mere needle of suspicion against the petitioner.
11. True it is, that requirement of prior approval under Section
17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018 is aimed to protect public officials from
malicious, vexatious and baseless complaints that might be filed in
relation to any recommendation made or decision taken by the
public officials in discharge of official functions or duties. The
expression ‘recommendation’ and ‘decision’ used under the
said Section refers to reasoned, objective and non-arbitrary
exercise of discretion while performing official duties in quasi-
judicial or pure administrative capacity but at the same breath, it
cannot be made a tool or used as an unbridled shelter to protect
corrupt government officials who have made any recommendation
or had taken a particular decision for their personal benefit.
12. In the opinion of this Court, in a case where accusation
regarding corruption has to be judged or inferred on the basis of
quasi-judicial/administrative decisions/recommendations made by
the public officials in official files in discharge of official functions
or duties, then the previous/prior approval of the competent
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33529] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-5866/2025]
authority is mandatory before prosecuting him/her as per the
mandate of Section 17-A of P.C. Act, 2018. This Court is of the
firm view that in cases where prima facie electronic evidence in
form of voice recording/video recording etc. are available against
accused and solely his/her quasi-judicial/administrative
decisions/recommendations are not to be assessed or evaluated to
find out correctness or truthfulness of the accusation, then it
would be a travesty of justice if the prosecution against him is not
allowed to be initiated/continued.
13. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that
complainant- Brijesh Meena in the complaint submitted to the
officials of the A.C.B. in unambiguous terms has levelled
allegations that co-accused- Khushboo Gehlot has demanded
gratification on her own behalf and also on behalf of petitioner.
Thereupon, when the trap was conducted, Khushboo Gehlot was
arrested on spot and her conversation with petitioner regarding
her acceptance of bribe on behalf of both the accused persons was
recorded. Thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are
very serious and not merely to be assessed from the quasi-judicial
order/recommendation.
As far as question with regard to the authenticity/correctness
of the audio recording/conversation between petitioner and co-
accused are concerned, the same is a matter to be decided by the
learned trial Court on the basis of the material and evidence
produced before it. The judgments cited at bar by the learned
counsel for the petitioner have been passed in peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33529] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-5866/2025]
14. In that view of the matter, the prayer for quashing of the
impugned FIR on the basis of the breach of mandatory procedure
provided under Section 17-A of the P.C. Act, 2018 has no merit
and the same therefore, deserves to be rejected.
15. Learned counsel also raised an argument with regard to
competence of Inspector, A.C.B. to conduct inquiry in the matter.
It has also been contended that the complaint made against
petitioner is without any basis as on the date of trap proceedings,
no work of complainant was pending. In that regard, suffice it to
note that Governor of Rajasthan on 10.02.1978 was pleased to
issue notification No.F1/6(40)(Group-5)/77 authorizing Police
Inspectors working with A.C.B. to conduct enquiry, inquiry,
investigation and arrest in relation to in the offences arising out of
16 The question regarding no work of the petitioner as alleged
being pending on the date of complaint/trap is concerned, the
same cannot be gone into at this stage. The said aspect is a
matter of fact to be decided by the learned trial Court. In light of
the telephonic conversation between co-accused and petitioner,
there is prima facie evidence indicating towards demand of bribe
for performance of official act.
17. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the instant
criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
18. All pending applications also stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
297-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)