Sanju Rajan Nayar vs Jayaraj

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2024 INSC 331 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.8254/2023)

SANJU RAJAN NAYAR … APPELLANT Versus JAYARAJ & ANR. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the High Court

of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl.P.No.606/2022 titled

Sri Jayaraj v. State of Karnataka, whereby under

Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the High

Court quashed the First Information Report1 bearing

No.63 of 2021 dated 8.12.2021 for the offence under

Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, pending before the 23rd Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.04.23 18:10:55 IST Reason:

1 ‘FIR’ for short 2

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and also perused the written submissions filed by the

parties across the Bar.

3. Respondent No.1 - Jairaj stands exonerated in the

departmental proceedings in relation to an inquiry

initiated on the basis of the complaint with regard

to the allegations of demand for bribe. As a

consequence thereof, the FIR in Crime No.63/2021

registered on the basis of the complaint made by the

instant appellant, stands quashed by the High Court

of Karnataka at Bengaluru vide its impugned judgment.

4. Briefly set out, the facts are, that the marriage

of the instant appellant was solemnized on 21.7.2006.

During the subsistence of such marriage, his wife

filed a complaint with the SHO Police Station Krishna

Rajapuram Police Station alleging the appellant to

have sexually harassed his minor child while visiting

the child in the school, which resulted into

registration of FIR No.555/2018 under the different

provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual 3

Offences Act, 2012 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent No.2, who was entrusted with the

investigation of the said FIR, demanded and accepted

monetary consideration from the instant appellant.

Since the demands of bribe continued, the instant

appellant brought the factum of such bribe to the

notice of Karnataka Human Rights Commission,

Bangalore, by placing on record the evidence inter

alia in the shape of a pendrive. As a result

thereof, based on the preliminary inquiry FIR was

registered with the Anti Corruption Branch, City

Bangalore Police Station on 8.12.2021 being Crime

Case No.63 of 2021 under the provisions of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988. Based on the preliminary

investigation, the authorities also accorded sanction

for prosecuting Respondent No.1.

5. In quashing the FIR the High Court observed that

“there is no direct evidence, where this petitioner

has demanded any money or bribe from the

complainant”. Also that “there is no material to

proceed against this accused No.1. That apart, it is 4

worth to mention that there was complaint registered

against respondent No.2 in Crime No.555/2018 for both

offences under Sections POCSO as well as Section 354

of IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of

respondent No.2. During the investigation, the

petitioner/accused No.2 said to have summoned the

complainant to the police station who is said to have

been harassed by them and was demanded money. But

later, only in order to overcome the complaint filed

against respondent No.2, by his wife this complaint

was filed for taking revenge against the police as

they had summoned the respondent No.2 to the police

for the purpose of investigation in Crime

No.555/2018”.

6. At this point in time, we observe that two

persons were named as accused whereas the petition

for quashing was preferred only by one of the

accused, namely, Jairaj. The FIR was categorical

that ASI Sivakumar (Accused No.2) had received money

and that Police Inspector Jairaj had assured that

they would provide chargesheet in lieu of Rs.80,000/- 5

and that the complainant would also have to pay

Rs.500 per week when he visits the police station, as

a condition of bail.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, in the considered view

of this Court, the approach adopted by the Courts in

quashing the FIR in the attending facts and

circumstances, is legally unsustainable. It ventured

into an inquiry, unwarranted at this stage, holding

that there is no direct evidence that the present

respondent had demanded any money and that there was

no material to proceed against him, completely

forgetting, if not ignoring the material which had

surfaced during the course of investigation, amongst

others, the pendrive, allegedly, indicating his

complicity in the crime.

8. Under these circumstances, in the attending facts

and circumstances, we allow the appeal, more so when

despite the accused having been exonerated in the

departmental proceedings yet the competent authority,

vide Annexure P3 proceeded to accord sanction for 6

prosecution. The High Court, in our considered view,

failed to account for the principles enunciated by

this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v.

Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) SCC Suppl.1 335.

9. We may also observe that it was the pleaded case

of the Lokayukta before the High Court that the

continuance of the trial was not on the very same

evidence as what weighed with the authorities in

exonerating the employee in the departmental

proceedings. This fact, also appears not to have

been considered by the High Court in its correct

perspective.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is

allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd

January, 2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka

at Bangalore in Crl.P.No.606/2022 titled Sri Jayaraj

v. State of Karnataka is quashed and set aside.

11. Consequentially, the FIR subject matter of the

present proceedings stands restored to be taken to

its logical end, in accordance with law. We clarify 7

that all questions of fact and law, as also other

pleas raised, are left open for the parties to be

agitated, if so advised and desired, before the

appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.

………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

………………………………………………………………………J. (PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE)

Dated : April 23, 2024;

Place : New Delhi.