Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a set of three petitions filed by Bharat Bhushan Sharma, former Minister of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Punjab, and his co-accused seeking quashing of FIR registered against them under Sections , , , , and of the and Sections , , , and of the , the Single Judge Bench of Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J., held that the allegations levelled in the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and criminal proceedings have been initiated by the Vigilance Bureau just to harass the accused. Holding this, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings.
Background
In the Punjab Food Grains Labour & Cartage Policy (‘the Policy’) for 2020-21, a new sub-clause G was inserted in clause 5 which mentioned that if a tenderer is applying for cartage, either alone or along with labour, the tenderer must have a minimum turnover from the cartage work of food grains of Government agencies in any one financial year out of previous three financial years i.e. from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, depending upon the capacity of cluster so applied for. Hence, the fresh participants were debarred as ineligible. Allegedly, due to the amendment of 2020-21, the capacity of the clusters was also increased which reduced the competition.
Aggrieved due to being an unsuccessful bidder, the complainant filed an FIR against Bharat Bhushan Sharma, the then Minister of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Punjab, and three co-accused, alleging that contracts were allotted to some ‘favourites’ of the Former Minister whereas bids of other contractors were rejected. It was also alleged they caused a huge loss to the public exchequer by hatching a criminal conspiracy, committing forgery using forged documents, and some of the government official(s) receiving kickbacks in return.
Analysis
After perusal of the Policy, the Court noted that the aforesaid amendment was made to facilitate everyone concerned and there was no intention to give benefit to any particular person. The Court stated that this amendment was challenged by certain unsuccessful bidders, but their writ petitions were dismissed and such dismissal was not challenged. Hence, the amendment had already been judicially reviewed by the Division Bench(es) of this Court and was duly upheld.
Regarding the allegations against the accused, the Court stated that the Policy for 2020-21 was framed by the Punjab Government and thus, it could not be said that the decision was solely made by Bharat Bhushan. The Court also stated that it was discernible that the other three accused were nominated without any valid basis by the complainant and witness. Thus, the Court held that the present case was registered by the Vigilance Bureau without verification of the facts.
The Court held that no mens rea could be attributed to two of the accused who were mere government employees who diligently discharged their duties. Regarding another accused, who was a successful bidder, the Court stated that the complainant and witness were unsuccessful bidders, so they had an axe to grind against him to wreak their vengeance. The Court held that a mere bald allegation of providing fake registration numbers of vehicles i.e. motorcycles, scooters and/or three-wheelers by the accused did not constitute any offence, particularly when there was no loss to the State Exchequer and the required quantity of food grains was duly delivered in time.
Thus, the Court held that the allegations levelled in the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and at best, the complainant could have availed the remedy of judicial review against the amendment, but certainly, there would have been no occasion to prosecute the accused persons on that count as well. The Court stated the irresistible conclusion would be that criminal proceedings have been initiated against the accused by the Vigilance Bureau at the instance of the complainant, just to harass them and as such, it amounted to misuse of powers by the Vigilance Bureau.
Holding this, the Court allowed all the petitions deeming it a fit case for the exercise of powers under Section of the to prevent the abuse of the process of law and quashed the challenged FIR and all the consequential proceedings.
[Bharat Bhushan Sharma v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 43528 of 2023, decided on 20-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai, Nikhil Ghai, Amit Agnihotri, Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, and Sarbuland Mann
For the respondent: Sr. DAG of Punjab D.S. Brar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
The post appeared first on .