Read Full Judgment: Sanju Rajan Nayar vs. Jayaraj & Anr.
In Criminal Appeal No. 2024 of 2023, arising from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8254 of 2023, Sanju Rajan Nayar appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which quashed FIR No. 63 of 2021 under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was filed against respondent Jayaraj, alleging demand for bribe. The High Court quashed the FIR based on lack of direct evidence of bribery. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
The appellant’s marriage took place in 2006. During the marriage, his wife filed a complaint accusing him of sexually harassing their minor child. This led to the registration of FIR No. 555 of 2018 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, respondent No. 2, the investigating officer, allegedly demanded and accepted bribes from the appellant. The appellant then reported this to the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, leading to the registration of FIR No. 63 of 2021 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The High Court quashed the FIR, citing lack of direct evidence of bribery by the respondent. It also noted that a complaint had been filed against respondent No. 2 by his wife, alleging harassment and bribery. The High Court suggested that the FIR against respondent No. 1 might have been filed in retaliation against the police for investigating the complaint against respondent No. 2.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. It observed that while the High Court found no direct evidence of bribery, it failed to consider the evidence that had surfaced during the investigation, including a pendrive allegedly indicating the respondent’s involvement in the crime. The Court criticized the High Court for conducting an unwarranted inquiry at this stage of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court also noted that despite respondent No. 1 being exonerated in departmental proceedings, prosecution sanction was accorded against him. The Court emphasized that the High Court did not consider the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) SCC Suppl.1 335.
The Court highlighted that the continuance of the trial was not based on the same evidence as in the departmental proceedings, which was asserted by the Lokayukta. This aspect was not considered by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the FIR for further proceedings.
The Court clarified that all questions of fact and law, as well as other pleas, were left open for the parties to raise before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale on April 23, 2024, in New Delhi.
