STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DR. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 17-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 319 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
DR. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 2012) 
AUGUST 17, 2012 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
A 
B 
s.482 - Exercise of power by High Court to quash criminal c 
proceedings - Explained. 
s.482 - High Court quashing the FIR registered against 
the respondent, a Surgeon in Govt. Hospital for accepting 
illegal gratification - Held: In the instant case, it cannot be said 0 
that the allegations made in FIR and the evidence collected 
do not disclose the commission of any offence and 
continuance of proceedings would be abuse of the process 
of court - This is certainly not a case where the FIR can be 
quashed - High Court failed to appreciate that the wholesome 
power vested in it uls 482 has to be exercised with 
E 
circumspection and very sparingly - In the circumstances, the 
impugned judgment and order is set aside. 
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: 
Affidavits in criminal proceedings - Held: It would be risky 
for the Courts to encourage the practice of filing affidavits by 
the witnesses at the stage of investigation or during the court 
proceedings in serious offences such as offences under the 
F 
PC Act because it is easy for an influential accused to 
G 
procure such affidavits and use them for quashing FIRs -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
Respondent No. 1, who was working as Junior 
Specialist (Surgery), in the State Government Hospital, 
319 
H 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A was stated to have been caught red handed accepting a 
bribe of Rs.1500/-, in a trap laid by the Anti Corruption 
Bureau on the complaint of one 'SL' that respondent no. 
1 had demanded Rs.5,000/- from him for the operation of 
his aunt, who had been operated upon by respondent no. 
B 1 and was waiting for her discharge from the hospital. An 
FIR was registered u/ss 7 and 13(1 )(d)(2) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent 1 and 
sanction for his prosecution was obtained from the 
competent authority. Respondent f filed a petition u/s 482 
c CrPC for quashing of the said FIR, which was allowed by 
the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal of the State, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. According to the prosecution, the trap 
D was successful. The chemically treated currency notes for 
the purpose of trap were found with respondent 1 and the 
test of his hand was found positive. The patient and her 
husband have in their statements recorded u/s 161 CrPC 
partly supported the complainant. It is also pertinent to 
E note that when the complaint was lodged, the patient was 
· still in the hospital. Further, the police claim that they have 
taped the conversation between the complainant and 
respondent 1 and the latter is said to have refused to give 
his voice sample for the purpose of investigation. How far 
F the evidence collected by the investigating agency is 
credible can be decided only when the evidence is tested 
by cross examination during the trial. But, in view of the 
contents of the FIR and nature of evidence collected by 
the investigating agency, this is certainly not a case where 
G the FIR can be quashed. It cannot be said that the 
allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in 
support of the same do not disclose the commission of 
any offence and continuance of proceedings would be 
abuse of the process of court. [para 8-9) [326-E-F, H; 327-
H A-D; 328-C) 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DR. RAJKUMAR 
321 
AGARWAL & ANR. 
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 
A 
= 1992 Supp. (1) 335 - relied on. 
1.2 As has been held by this court in Shiji@ Pappu*, 
plenitude of the power u/s 482 CrPC by itself makes it 
obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with 
utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the 
B 
power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only 
in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be 
recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the 
prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the 
process of law. In the instant case, the High Court failed C 
to appreciate that the wholesome power vested in it u/s 
482 of the Code has to be exercised with circumspection 
and very sparingly. In the circumstances, the impugned 
judgment and order is set aside. [para 9 and 11] [327-H; 
328-A-C; 328-F] 
D 
*Shiji alias Pappu & Ors. v. Radhika & Anr. 2011 (13) 
SCR 135 = (2011) 10 SCC 705 - referred to 
2. Respondent 1 is relying on three aff

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.