Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Police Patil Under Prevention of Corruption Act — Police Patil Not a Public Servant Under Section 2(c) of the Act. Petitioner appointed under Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 held not to be a public servant within meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Atul Ramdas Dabare, was appointed as a Police Patil under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967. An FIR was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 7A, 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that he is not a public servant within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the first and second respondents. The court considered the definition of public servant under the 1988 Act and held that a Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 does not fall within that definition. Consequently, the FIR was quashed. The court did not elaborate on the facts of the case beyond the status of the petitioner and the nature of the FIR.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act - Public Servant - Definition - Police Patil appointed under Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court held that the definition of public servant under the 1988 Act does not include a Police Patil appointed under the 1967 Act, and therefore the FIR for offences under Sections 7A, 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the 1988 Act is not maintainable - Held that the FIR is quashed (Para 1).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is a public servant within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The FIR registered against the petitioner is quashed.

Law Points

  • Police Patil appointed under Maharashtra Village Police Act
  • 1967 is not a public servant under Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act
  • 1988
  • FIR quashed
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 63

Writ Petition No. 449 of 2017

2017-03-16

A.S. Oka, Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b Mr. Balwant Vittal Salunke for the Petitioner, Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2

Atul Ramdas Dabare

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR registered under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7A, 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Filing Reason

Petitioner challenged the FIR on the ground that he is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issues

Whether a Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is a public servant within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he is not a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent State opposed the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

A Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is not a public servant within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and therefore the FIR for offences under the said Act is not maintainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not a public servant within a meaning of clause(c) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging an FIR registered against him. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 16 March 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 2(c), Section 7A, Section 13(1)(e), Section 13(2)
  • Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967:
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Police Patil Under Prevention of Corruption Act — Police Patil Not a Public Servant Under Section 2(c) of the Act. Petitioner appointed under Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 held not to be a public servant...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Petition on Khawati Karz Scheme Implementation for Tribal Areas. Government's undertaking to implement pilot scheme in Dharni during 2010-2011 accepted as sufficient redressal.