Prima facie intermediary receipt of a bribe for a public servant warrants continued investigation.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with BESCOM and accused No. 1 in Crime No. 8/2023, sought to quash the complainant’s complaint and the FIR insofar as he was concerned, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.

The complainant alleged that, in connection with pending work, accused No. 1 directed him to accused No. 2, a contractor described as accused No. 1’s confidant.

During the trap, accused No. 2 allegedly accepted tainted currency and telephoned accused No. 1; the complainant heard accused No. 1 respond “done” and say that he would come to the office and do the rest.

The petitioner argued that the investigation should be quashed because he had not personally received the bribe.

1. Whether the complaint and FIR should be quashed against the petitioner because he did not personally receive the tainted currency.

2. Whether the material in the experimental and trap mahazars provided a sufficient prima facie basis to continue the investigation into whether accused No. 2 received the bribe on the petitioner’s behalf.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC as the bases for seeking quashing.

At the investigation stage, it should not conduct a mini-trial where the material discloses a prima facie basis to proceed; questions requiring assessment of the evidence and the parties’ competing contentions may be left for the investigation and, if appropriate, trial.

The Court considered the experimental mahazar, which recorded discussions about the pending work, the petitioner’s refusal to quote a bribe amount, and his direction to the complainant to speak with accused No. 2, after which the amount was fixed.

It also relied on the trap mahazar and the alleged call in which accused No. 1 was informed that the currency and file had been handed over and replied “done”.

Taken together, these matters prima facie supported the allegation that accused No. 2 received the tainted currency for and on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner’s contention that he did not personally receive the money, and the other disputed matters, were not grounds to terminate the investigation at that stage.

It left the petitioner’s contentions open for the investigation and trial and reserved his right to challenge any adverse report in accordance with law.

The Court dismissed the writ petition.