R.P. Tiwari vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was devoid of merit and not maintainable at this stage. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., which states that courts should not quash investigations into cognizable offenses. The Court reasoned that it is the duty of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and submit a final report, and that quashing the investigation would amount to granting anticipatory bail relief through the backdoor. Since the petitioner was already on anticipatory bail, no direction could be issued to prevent coercive action. The Court clarified that its observations would not be used against the petitioner during the investigation. The issue of the petitioner's culpability or innocence is to be determined by the investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, R.P. Tiwari, a contractual Sub-Engineer at Janpad Panchayat, Gohparu, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR registered against him under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by a stranger, and the petitioner contends it was registered without informing his superiors. He argues that his role as Sub-Engineer does not involve sanctioning payments to vendors, and therefore, allegations of payments made to individuals without valid GST registration fall outside his purview. He relies on documents (Annexure P-4 and P-5) indicating his responsibilities and the scope of his duties concerning bill vouchers. The State submitted that the matter is under investigation and the petitioner is already on anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Section 420 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner, a contractual Sub-Engineer, for alleged payments to vendors without valid GST registration, is liable to be quashed, considering his limited role as per Annexures P-4 and P-5? (Question of law and fact, concerning the scope of duties of a public servant and criminal liability). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the allegations in the FIR do not fall within his defined responsibilities as a Sub-Engineer, specifically regarding the sanctioning of payments and verification of vendor GST registration. He contended that his duties, as outlined in Annexure P-4 and P-5, do not encompass these aspects, and therefore, the FIR against him should be quashed. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the matter is under investigation and that the Supreme Court's decision in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021 SCC Online 315) prohibits quashing investigations into cognizable offenses. They also noted that the petitioner is already on anticipatory bail.