Raj HC quashes bribery case against former municipal officer

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against a retired municipal officer accused of involvement in a bribery racket, while closely examining the legality of pre-FIR arrest, warrantless search, and phone tapping carried out during the investigation.

The matter was heard by Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3729/2024, Achleshwer Meena vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., with judgment pronounced on March 17, 2026.

The petitioner, a retired Financial Advisor of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 05/2022 registered by ACB Jaipur for offences under Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 201 and 120B IPC.

According to the prosecution, the ACB had received source information indicating that certain municipal officials were allegedly demanding and collecting commission ranging between 2–3% from contractors for clearing pending bills. Acting on this information, the ACB initiated surveillance, including interception of phone calls, which allegedly suggested involvement of the petitioner and other co-accused in handling illegal gratification.

The prosecution further relied on recovery of approximately ₹27 lakh from a co-accused and certain documents indicating pending contractor payments, contending that these materials established a prima facie case of corruption and conspiracy.

The petitioner, however, mounted a strong challenge to the very foundation of the investigation, arguing that the entire proceedings were vitiated by serious procedural and constitutional violations.

It was contended that ACB officials had entered his residence without a warrant and conducted search and seizure operations even before registration of the FIR. The petitioner further argued that no incriminating material or bribe amount was recovered from his possession, and that his arrest was effected prior to registration of the FIR, rendering the entire process illegal.

A major plank of the petitioner’s case was the alleged illegality of phone tapping. It was argued that the approval for interception was granted by an अधिकारी not competent under law, and without recording any satisfaction regarding public emergency or public safety, as required under the Indian Telegraph Act and allied rules. The petitioner asserted that such surveillance violated his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognised in the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

The petitioner also submitted that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe, which is a sine qua non for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was further argued that the investigation suffered from additional infirmities, including absence of prior sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act, and the fact that the complainant and investigating officer were the same, thereby compromising the fairness of the investigation.

Alleging violation of statutory safeguards, the petitioner pointed out that provisions relating to arrest under Sections 41 and 41A CrPC, as well as the mandate to inform grounds of arrest and produce the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours, were not complied with. It was also contended that mandatory safeguards relating to search and seizure under Sections 100 and 165 CrPC were ignored.

On the other hand, the State opposed the petition, contending that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and based on credible material, including intercepted communications and recovery from co-accused persons. It was argued that the petitioner’s involvement emerged from conversations and surrounding circumstances, and that the issues raised pertained to disputed questions of fact which ought to be examined during trial.

After hearing both sides at length and examining the record, the High Court framed crucial questions for determination, including whether search, seizure and arrest conducted prior to registration of FIR were legally sustainable, whether the phone tapping was authorised in accordance with law, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

Case Title Achleshwer Meena vs State Of Rajasthan

Case Number S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3729/2024

Court High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali

Date of Order 17 March 2026

Advocates For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Gupta Mr. Parth Gupta

For the Respondents: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP