Skip to main content

Not Registering FIR Is Not Corruption: Dewas Corruption Court Judge Manish Singh Thakur



करप्शन कोर्ट  ने नई परिभाषा  दी की काम नहीं करना करप्शन नहीं होता, बिना प्रारंभिक इन्क्वारी के क्लीन चिट दे दी 

Dewas MP State.: A Complaint under Prevention of corruption act 1988 was filed before Special court Under PC act before ADJ 1 Dewas Shri Manish Singh Thakur. The Complaint was that the SHO BNP Mukesh Ijjardar was not taking action in cognizable offence under IPC 420,120b, 468 against school management inspite of evidence submitted since last 1.5 years . He also neglected DLSA secretary letter to conduct investigation in cognizable offence. 

The complainant made allegation that SHO has taken bribe from accused and denying action in cognizable offence. He dont follow Lalita Kumari order with time limit of 2 weeks  and various circulars of Home ministry. He has huge disproportionate assets and it is offence under IPC 166A, 409,212, with section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988.

The complainant requested to conduct preliminary enquiry through SP Lokayukt Ujjain or its own as per MP High Court order. In last hearing Judge said that he will pass interim order on next hearing. Complainant said that as per Delhi HC and Kerala HC order it is not his part of duty to disobey SC order and rule of law, so Section 17 A protection is not applicable to SHO. 

As per MP High Court order inspite of no sanction, Judge has to do preliminary enquiry on its own without the help of the police. So many citations was mentioned in petition about Corruption passed by SC order. 

The Dewas Judge made new definition to save SHO that not doing duty as per law is not part of corruption. He did not mentioned allegation of bribe and disproportionate asset and SC orders about corruption in order  . He rejected the complaint with suppression of fact that not doing duty as per law is not corruption. 

It means dereliction of duty is disciplinary matter not criminal matter. So how Lalu yadav, Manish Sisodia is behind bar. In Manish Sisodia case CBI did not recovered any money from his home then also he is behind bar in PC act with section 7 and 13. If Judge will not conduct enquiry then how the crime will be exposed? No report called from SP Lokayukt and new definition created against SC Order.No judicial process followed and order passed with suppression of many fact. As per judge not registering FIR in cognizable offence is disciplinary matter . It is honest act of SHO to take bribe and deny action.  Now people will say that disobeying HC and SC order is not contempt it is only disciplinary action.

Apex Court's judgment in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64. Paragraph No.68 of the said decision reads as follows:

"68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

A Delhi court on Friday denied bail to former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in a CBI case related to alleged irregularities in implementation of Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 stating that he can "prima facie be held to be architect of the said criminal conspiracy".

 Prevention Of Corruption Act- An Enquiry At Pre-FIR Stage Is Not Only Permissible But Desirable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363 OF 2021 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6764 of 2020) Charansingh …Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents

9.1 Thus, an enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and not only permissible but desirable, more particularly in cases where the allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring the assets/properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. After the enquiry/enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage/preliminary enquiry, if, on the basis of the material collected during such enquiry, it is found that the complaint is vexatious and/or there is no substance at all in the complaint, the FIR shall not be lodged. However, if the material discloses prima facie a commission of the offence alleged, the FIR will be lodged and the criminal proceedings will be put in motion and the further investigation will be carried out in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered. Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is made.

9.2 Even as held by this Court in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175, a GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. 


 In Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 326, para 5, this Court held that: (SCC p. 328) ''5. The question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, etc. can he be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the public funds, etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund, etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of the same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.'

 In a recent decision in Rajib Ranjan v. R. Vijaykumar, (2015) 1 SCC 513, at para 18, this Court has taken the view that: (SCC p. 521) ''18. ... even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted."

In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab: AIR 2007 SC 1274, it has been held as follows:

"The principle of immunity protects all acts which the public servant has to perform in the exercise of the functions of the Government. The purpose for which they are performed protects these acts from criminal prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity".

Law with regard to order for sanction for prosecution and when the question of sanction can be entertained, has been summarised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab through CBI, (2016) 12 SCC 87 (para-39), as under:

"39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarized hereunder :

39.1. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime.

06.04.2023 आवेदक सपन श्रीवास्तव स्वयं।

इस आदेश द्वारा आवेदक सपन श्रीवास्तव की ओर से

प्रस्तुत आवेदन-पत्र अंतर्गत धारा 156 (3) द.प्र.सं. का निराकरण

किया जा रहा है।

आवेदन-पत्र के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है, कि

आवेदक एक मीडिया रिपोर्टर है तथा उसके द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार व

अनियमितताओं के संबंध में कई मामले उच्च न्यायालय एवं

उच्चतम न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं। अनावेदक क्र. 1 थाना

बैंक नोट प्रेस के प्रभारी के पद पर होकर एक लोकसेवक है जो

अपने कर्त्तव्यों एवं दायित्वों को विधि अनुसार निर्वहन के लिए

दायित्वाधीन है लेकिन उसके द्वारा अपने कर्त्तव्यों एवं दायित्वों का

निर्वहन विधि अनुसार न करते हुए भ्रष्टाचार किया जा रहा है, जो

भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 के अनुसार

दण्डनीय है।

आवेदन-पत्र में आगे उल्लिखित है, कि अनावेदक क्रमांक 1

द्वारा सेंट्रल मालवा एकेडमी के प्रबंधन तथा काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया

स्कूल सर्टिफिकेट एक्जामिनेशन के विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज

न करके माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा ललिता कुमारी वाले

मामले में दिये गये दिशा-निर्देशों का उल्लंधन किया है, क्योंकि

दोनों संस्थान आई.सी.एस.सी./आई.एस.सी. से मान्यता प्राप्त होने

का दावा करते हैं और उन्हें ऐसी मान्यता प्राप्त नहीं है।

आवेदन-पत्र में अनावेदक क्रमांक 1 के विरूद्ध उपरोक्त

तथ्य भी कथित किये गये हैं और इसके अतिरिक्त विभिन्न न्याय

दृष्टांतों एवं विधि संबंधी उपबंधों का उल्लेख करते हुए अनावेदक

क्रमांक 1 के विरूद्ध प्राथमिक जाँच किए जाने और भा.द.संकी

धारा 166-ए (बी), 120-बी, 420, 409 सहित भ्रष्टाचार

निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 व 13 के अंतर्गत प्रथम

सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज करवाए जाने का आदेश दिये जाने की प्रार्थना

की गई है।

जहाँ तक किसी अपराध के संबंध में पुलिस द्वारा प्रथम

सूचना रिपोर्ट लेखबद्ध न किये जाने का प्रश्न है तो इस संबंध में

केवल यह उल्लेखनीय है, कि ऐसे अभिकथित अपराध के संबंध में

ही संबंधित न्यायिक मजिस्टेªट के समक्ष या तो द.प्र.सं. की धारा

156 (3) के अंतर्गत आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है या फिर

द.प्र.सं. की धारा 200 के अंतर्गत परिवाद संस्थित किया जा

सकता है।

जहाँ तक संबंधित पुलिस अधिकारी द्वारा किसी अपराध के

संबंध में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज न किये जाने के आधार पर

भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 एवं 13 के

अंतर्गत अपराध पंजीबद्ध किये जाने का प्रश्न है तो इस संबंध में

उक्त विधिक उपबंधों का उल्लेख किया जाना उचित होगा कि

भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 7 के अंतर्गत मात्र

इस आधार पर किसी अपराध का गठन नहीं होता है, कि

उसके द्वारा अपने कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन नहीं किया गया है। उक्त

अधिनियम की धारा 7 के अंतर्गत अपराध के गठन हेतु प्रथम

दृष्ट्या यह साक्ष्य उपलब्ध होना आवश्यक है, कि उसके द्वारा

असम्यक् लाभ अभिप्राप्त या प्रतिगृहीत किया गया अथवा ऐसा

करने का प्रयास किया गया, परंतु आवेदक की ओर से प्रस्तुत

आवेदन पूर्णतः संभावनाओं के आधार पर प्रस्तुत किया गया है।

जहाँ तक भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13

(2) के अंतर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध का प्रश्न है तो इस संबंध में भी

केवल यह उल्लेखनीय है, कि आवेदक द्वारा अपने आवेदन-पत्र में

किसी भी प्रकार से स्पष्ट अभिकथन नहीं किये गये हैं कि

अनावेदक क्रमांक 1 द्वारा अपनी पदावधि के दौरान स्वयं को किस

प्रकार अवैध रूप से साशय समृद्ध किया।

यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है, कि किसी भी लोकसेवक द्वारा

उसके पदीय कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन न किये जाने के आधार पर भले

ही वह अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही के अधीन हो, परन्तु इसके

बावजूद कोई आपराधिक मामला नहीं बनता है।

परिणामतः अनावेदक क्रमांक 1 के विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना

रिपोर्ट दर्ज किये जाने के लिए प्रथम दृष्ट्या कोई आधार नहीं है

और तदानुसार आवेदन-पत्र खारिज किया जाता है।

प्रकरण का परिणाम संबंधित पंजी में दर्ज किया जाकर

अभिलेख नियमानुसार अभिलेखागार भेजा जाए।


Popular posts from this blog

FDA Maharashtra Directory Contact Moblie Number

Food and Drug Administration Directory  DOWNLOAD JUNE 2021 CONTACT LIST PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT Field Office Circle Head (Assit Commissioner Address of Field Office Inspector AHMEDNAGAR A.T. RATHOD (7045757882) 19C, Siddhivinayak Colony,,Near Auxillium School, Savedi,,Ahmednagar - 414003 J.H.SHAIKH (9158424524) AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) Civil Line, Akashwani Road, ,Akola ,AKOLA H. Y. METKAR (9730155370) AMARAVATI U.B.GHAROTE (9595829895) Office of the Joint Commissioner,Jawade Compound, Near Bus Stand,Amrawati-444 601 C. K. DANGE (9422844477) AURANGABAD S. S. KALE (9987236658) Office of the Joint Commissioner,,2nd floor, Nath Super Market, Aurangpura,Aurangabad R. M. BAJAJ (9422496941) AURANGABAD Zone 2

हिन्दू शब्द वेदों से लिया गया है ना की फ़ारसी से

  HINDU WORD ORIGIN PLZ CLICK ADVERTISEMENT TO SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE FOR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISEMENT हिन्दू शब्द सिंधु से बना है  औऱ यह फारसी शब्द है। परंतु ऐसा कुछ नहीं है! ये केवल झुठ फ़ैलाया जाता है।ये नितांत असत्य है  ........ "हिन्दू"* शब्द की खोज - *"हीनं दुष्यति इति हिन्दूः से हुई है।”* *अर्थात* जो अज्ञानता और हीनता का त्याग करे उसे हिन्दू कहते हैं। 'हिन्दू' शब्द, करोड़ों वर्ष प्राचीन, संस्कृत शब्द से है! यदि संस्कृत के इस शब्द का सन्धि विछेदन करें तो पायेंगे .... *हीन+दू* = हीन भावना + से दूर *अर्थात* जो हीन भावना या दुर्भावना से दूर रहे, मुक्त रहे, वो हिन्दू है ! हमें बार-बार, सदा झूठ ही बतलाया जाता है कि हिन्दू शब्द मुगलों ने हमें दिया, जो *"सिंधु" से "हिन्दू"* हुआ l *हिन्दू शब्द की वेद से ही उत्पत्ति है !* जानिए, कहाँ से आया हिन्दू शब्द, और कैसे हुई इसकी उत्पत्ति ? हमारे "वेदों" और "पुराणों" में *हिन्दू शब्द का उल्लेख* मिलता है। आज हम आपको बता रहे हैं कि हमें हिन्दू शब्द कहाँ से मिला है! "ऋग्वेद" के *"

RTE & School Quota Of Kalyan Dombivli KDMC Region Thane

 Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Region School Quota and RTE 25% quota details received from RTI reply from KDMC Education department. Almost in all the schools free education seats for income below Rs1lac is vacant .The vacant seats are illegally filled by private school in open category by private schools by taking donations. KDMC education didnot taken any action. Total approved strength of class is 4 times of RTE quota. If RTE 25% quota is 25 then approved students limit is 100 students. Means 75 students from general and 25 from RTE 25% quota. In all the schools students are more than from approved strength and RTE 25% seats are vacant. It means RTE seats are filled by general students. As per RTE Act 2009 poor quota seats ie RTE25% cannot be filled by general quota in any condition and at any class. Helpline 9702859636  RTE Admission