Mere bribe demand is an offence! HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against govt doctor

Jabalpur: Observing that it is immaterial whether a public servant receives, accepts, or attempts to obtain an undue advantage directly or through a third party, the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash an FIR against a government doctor accused of demanding a bribe to allow a centre to continue functioning on the campus of a Community Health Center in Khargapur.

Dismissing the plea, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh held, "In the case of Mubarak Ali Vs. State (AIR 1958 MP 157) , it is held that ' a mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to the commission of this offence'."

The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by a doctor, an In-Charge Block Medical Officer in Tikamgarh district who had approached the High Court seeking cancellation of an FIR registered against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The allegation against the doctor was that the complainant operates an Aadhaar card preparation centre within the premises of the Community Health Center in Khargapur. It is claimed that the petitioner doctor demanded a bribe to allow the centre to continue functioning on the campus. A complaint was subsequently filed, and a recording was made in connection with the allegations. 

Appearing for the petitioner argued that the FIR deserved to be quashed in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling (in n Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs. State of Gujarat and another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 273]). 

The petitioner's counsel also submitted that he had received informal information suggesting that the Lokayukt may close the case. However, this claim was strongly opposed by the respondent’s counsel. The petitioner’s counsel also raised concerns regarding the complainant’s locus and the delay in filing the case.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Bench relied on the explanation appended to Section 7, observing "the obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper."

This explanation was backed by an illustration provided in the order that whether a public service asks money from any person to expedite routine work is guilty of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, after its 2018 amendment.

On the issue of locus, the Court held that Explanation (2) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, clearly states that it is immaterial whether a public servant obtains, accepts, or attempts to obtain undue advantage directly or through a third party. Therefore, even if the centre is not officially in the complainant’s name, the complainant would still have the locus to file the complaint.

Regarding the delay, the bench said, "Delay of one month, as is apparent from the FIR Ex.P/2, cannot be said to be so fatal so to defeat the case or collection of the evidence. Delay in lodging of the FIR can only be fatal when it becomes impossible for the prosecution to collect evidence and presented in the form of a comprehensive data before the trial Court for prosecution. Therefore, these two grounds also do not find favour with us."

In response to the petitioner citing the recent Supreme Court ruling, the Bench clarified that the facts are distinguishable from those in Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs. State of Gujarat, since in the case of Mubarak Ali Vs. State (AIR 1958 MP 157), the apex court held that " a mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to the commission of this offence." 

Therefore, the Court said "That judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the amended provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 2018, in view of the Explanation- 1 and Illustration, whereas matter before Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the year 2008. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid quoted illustration, no indulgence is called for to quash the FIR at this stage."

To view the court order, click on the link below:

Also read- HC sets aside MBBS student's expulsion in exam malpractice case