Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Alleging Bribe Demand By Enquiry Officer | Charges Based On Speculation And Malafide | Transcript Shows No Proof Of Illegal Gratification Or Criminal Intent
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against a public servant for allegedly demanding a bribe during a departmental enquiry. The Court held that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and that the complaint appeared to be driven by ulterior motives. The Court further found the petition devoid of merit and affirmed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had set aside the Magistrate's directive for registration of FIR.
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 15.04.2019 of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), New Delhi. The ASJ had set aside an earlier order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.), which had directed the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the petitioner’s complaint.
The petitioner had alleged that one Sanjeev Sharma, an enquiry officer appointed under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs to alter the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner. The complaint also mentioned that the respondent had connections with senior officials in the department and that an incident involving delivery of large sums of money to the respondent's office had been reported in a newspaper.
Despite filing multiple complaints dated 09.04.2018, 18.05.2018, and 24.11.2017, the petitioner alleged no action was taken. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed supported by transcripts, a CD, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The State filed an Action Taken Report (ATR), stating that no incriminating evidence was found and the complaint appeared motivated.
It was revealed during the preliminary enquiry that the petitioner was already involved in a bribery case investigated by the CBI and had possibly initiated the complaint against the enquiry officer to influence the disciplinary proceedings. The M.M. nevertheless found prima facie cognizable offence and ordered FIR registration.
On appeal by the respondent, the ASJ held that the M.M. had failed to provide cogent reasoning for disregarding the ATR and also noted that no prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. or Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had been obtained. The M.M.'s order was thus deemed illegal and unsustainable.
The petitioner challenged the ASJ’s findings on grounds that no sanction is required at the pre-cognizance stage, citing Devender Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, among others. It was argued that the acts alleged were personal misconduct and not protected under official duty.
The respondent countered that both enquiry reports, submitted on 07.03.2018 and 17.04.2018, had found the petitioner guilty. The complaint to DG, SAI was filed on 09.04.2018, strategically timed after the initial adverse report, reflecting mala fide intent. The transcript allegedly presented no clear demand for bribe.
The Court recorded, "To put it in nutshell, the basic allegations against the Respondent that were made by the Petitioner in his Complaint dated 18.05.2018 to SO, P.S. Lodhi Colony was that the Respondent No. 5 Sanjeev Sharma while conducting a Departmental Enquiry against him, had made a demand of bribe of Rs.5 lakhs for giving a Report in his favour."
The Court examined the chronology and noted, "The Enquiry got initiated on 27.02.2017 and the Final Report was submitted by him to DG, SAI on 07.03.2018... No Complaint till then, was made by the Petitioner. The Report again got submitted on 17.04.2018."
It observed, "Strategically the Complaint gets filed on 09.04.2018... Significantly, no such Complaint Case was made during the holding of the Enquiry and there was no specific date given on which such demands of bribe were allegedly made by the Respondent."
The Court found this timing suspicious, stating, "The timing...clearly shows his malafide... The Petitioner apparently saw an opportunity to get the Report modified or changed in his favour and with that malafide intent, the first Complaint gets made on 09.04.2018."
On the evidentiary value of the transcript, the Court stated, "The only factor which emerges from that conversation is that the Petitioner had been given an offer of getting the Report prepared from a counsel... Such conduct may amount to some kind of misconduct, but definitely cannot be a factor to show that there is any demand for illegal gratification."
The Court concluded, "All the averments made in the Complaint are more in the realm of speculation and imagination, which cannot take the place of a suspicion, what to talk of a grave suspicion."
The High Court held: "There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby dismissed." It further ordered: "The Petition along with the pending Application(s), stands disposed of accordingly."
Case Title: Shiv Dutt Bakshi v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4586
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 1300/2019
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
[Read/Download order]
