Ram Avtar Goel v. The State, NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. Whether the Reporters of [oca[ papers may be attowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? I 3. Whether the judgment shoutd be reported in the Digest? ' t suNtl GAUR, J. Crl. M.A. No. 257212010

1. Exemption attowed, subject to att just exceptions.

2. Apptication is disposed of..+ CrL M.C. No.704 of 2010 Page L 2010:DHC:7597 )/ Crl. M.C. No. 704 of 2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 2571l2010

1. At the fag-end of triat in sc No. 96 of 200g, titted,,state vs. Ram Avtar Goel" arising out of FIR No. 42 0f 2000, under sections 7 / 13 of Prevention of corruption Act, 19gg, petitioner/ accused has approached this Court for quashing of the triat of this case because the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings on the subject matter of the FIR in question. counsel for the petitioner relies upon two unreported decisions of this court i.e. criminat M.c. No. 1833 of zooT "Ajay Kumar Tyagi vs. state,, of 25th August, 2008, and criminat M.c. No. 3599 of 200g, ',A.s. Ahluwalia vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi" of 5th February, zoog, wherein at the initiat stage of criminat proceedings FlRs were quashed in the facts of those cases.

2. Notice.

3. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Additionat Pubtic Prosecutor accepts notice on behatf of respondent- State and submits that the aforesaid two decisions retied upon are ctearty distinguishabte on facts and the correct position has been hightighted in "sunil Gulati vs. R.K. vohra', 2007 (1) JCC 220 wherein a distinction has been drawn between the exoneration in the departmental proceedings on merits vis-i-vis exoneration not on merits or in a case where proceedings are based on t CrL M.C. No.704 of 2010 Page[2] a different set of facts and evidence and since the triat of this case is at the stage of final arguments, therefore, the petitioner can urge the ground taken herein before the trial court.

4. After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the record and the judgment cited, this court finds that reasons for such an exoneration on merits were on same facts or different facts is a question which is required to be deatt by the trial court at the finat hearing of this case, which is not far away. lt is not in dispute that this case is now fixed before the trial court at the stage of finat arguments. lt is true that the trial court does not have the power to quash the proceedings but certainty if the trial court finds that the exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is on the same facts as emerging on record in the criminal case, then nothing stops the trial court to extend the same benefit to the petitioner at the closing of the trial of this case white taking into consideration the two unreported decisions retied upon by the trial court in this case. This Court is not inctined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and finds it to be most appropriate to retegate the petitioner to urge the grounds taken herein before the trial court, which of course shall be dealt by the triat court in accordance with [aw. Anything stated herein shatt have no bearing on the merits of this case at trial. Needtess to.a Crl. M.C. No.704 of 2010 Page 3 say that order passed in this case is in the pecutiar facts of this case and woutd not be treated as a precedent.

5. with aforesaid directions, this petition and pending apptication are disposed of. March 08, 2010 rs C t Crl. M.C. No.704 of 2010 Page 4