Delay Alone No Ground to Quash Corruption Cases: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea To Quash FIR Despite 10-Year Delay In Filing Chargesheet

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has said that it is not permissible to quash the F.I.R. registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground of delay.

The Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by a private vendor who sought the quashing of a multi-lakh vigilance F.I.R. registered in 2016 concerning structural and financial irregularities in the procurement of commercial waste containers for the Dharamshala Municipal Committee.

The Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla said, "...it is not permissible to quash the F.I.R. registered under the P.C. Act on the ground of delay."

Brief Facts

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The F.I.R. was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) at the Police Station State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB).

The case originated from a resolution passed by the Municipal Committee to purchase containers with lids. A preliminary inquiry conducted by the Director of Urban Development revealed grave violations of financial rules and procurement procedures. It was found that obsolete waste bins were purchased despite a separate selection of the area for underground waste bins. Furthermore, mandatory e-tendering and standard offline procurement procedures were bypassed, and supply orders were issued without specified items.

The subsequent investigation by the SV & ACB uncovered a criminal conspiracy to purchase containers involving substantial public funds. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, a private vendor, actively participated in the conspiracy, submitted forged quotations of other firms, and his signatures matched the disputed documents. Consequently, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner primarily contended that his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was grossly violated. It was argued that the investigation and subsequent proceedings had taken several years from the date of the incident without the trial commencing. Given that the prosecution cited a large number of witnesses, the trial was bound to take an inordinate amount of time, rendering the continuation of the proceedings an abuse of the process of law.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that corruption cases involve voluminous documentary records and complex forensic analyses, making some delay inevitable. It was submitted that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency and that the gravity of the offences demanded that the trial be allowed to proceed.

Findings of the Court

The High Court observed that an F.I.R. involving serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay. Relying on settled legal jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that corruption strikes at the foundation of probity in public life, and public interest heavily outweighs the passage of time at the threshold stage.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that constitutional courts owe a duty to society to maintain a policy of zero tolerance toward corruption.

The Court said that the in the present case, the FIR was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and it was laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, (2023), that corruption is eroding public life, and it is the constitutional duty of the Courts to show zero tolerance to corruption.

The Court reiterated that the the Court should not quash the F.I.R. related to the corruption except in exceptional cases where there is absolutely no material or even a reasonable suspicion to support the case.

"This would harm innocent public servants, but it is a small price to pay to ensure probity in society", it added.

The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. and the consequential criminal proceedings.

Cause Title: Rajesh Kakar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:HHC:21223]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Virender Thakur

Respondents: Additional Advocate General Lokender

Click here to read/download the Order