Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has quashed a 2014 FIR alleging bribery against a judicial officer and a court bailiff, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The FIR was registered at the Gujarat High Court Vigilance Cell police station in Ahmedabad under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Patdiya alleged that when he presented a plaint against an electricity company in Oct 2012, the judge demanded Rs 5,000 for granting an injunction. As the adjudication of proceedings on merits has been accepted by the High Court, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in para 39 of Radheshyam Kejriwal, the trial of the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of the court (sic). ”
He further alleged that the demand was later repeated through a phone call from a number said to belong to Raval. The case involved Jatin Shah, then principal senior civil judge at Dhandhuka, and court bailiff Dipakkumar Raval. The FIR followed an order by the registrar (vigilance) on a complaint filed by advocate Jagdishkumar Patdiya in connection with a civil suit. The court questioned the complainant’s silence for nearly a year and observed that the allegations against the bailiff were based mainly on call records. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the high court held that where identical allegations have resulted in exoneration on merits, criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. It stated, “The allegations in the vigilance proceedings as well as in the prosecution proceedings are identical.
Justice P M Raval, after hearing the matter, noted the timing of the alleged incident and the delay in filing the complaint before the High Court vigilance cell.
Legal Challenge by Judge and Bailiff
In 2016, a judge and a bailiff submitted petitions to quash allegations against them, asserting that no prima facie case existed due to a lack of evidence demonstrating demand, acceptance, or recovery. They cited departmental proceedings that resulted in their exoneration, with the high court’s full court acknowledging their clean record.