JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. — By this order I propose to dispose of the above mentioned four petitions all of which have been filed under section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing F.I.R. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5/92 registered at Thana A. C.Z., Una. The facts giving rise to all these four petitions are that F.I.R. No 2/92 dated 4-3-1992 under sections 218, 420, 120-B, I.P.C sections 11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, sections 81 and 82 of Indian Registration Act and section 64 of Indian Stamps Act were registered against the petitioner which reads as under :— "As per letter No. 1293 dated 3 3-1992 from the I.G. Police, Vigilance and Employment, H.P. received through Head Constable Ram Kumar, enclosed therewith a Vigilance Report No. ACD/ 116/IAS 1/91 dated 29-11-1991 against Sh. Rajmani Tripathi, former Deputy Commissioner, Una, the investigation file is annexed and registering a case against the accused has been ordered. As per the investigation report, Shri Rajmani Tripathi, who is at present posted as Joint Secretary (Revenue), H.P. Shimla, was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Una from October, 1986 to November, 1990 As he had no issue, he had adopted Km Pushp, daughter of his elder brother Sh. Sheshmani Trigunayat son of Shri Ram, Brahmin, resident of Mahapur, P.O. Bhanwarpura, Tehsil Machhishahar, District Jaunpur, U.P. and married her to Shri Shy am Sunder Sharma son of Shri Hako Ram Sharma, resident of Gugalahar (Una) in the year 1989. After marriage the girl was named as Smt. Gita Sharma. During his tenure as D.C. Una, Shri Rajmani Tripathi, purchased land in the name of his daughter, Pushp alias Smt Gita Sharma, vide Registry No. 286, dated 5-7-1990. situated in village Nangal Khurd, Sub-Tehsil Haroli, District Una, from the owners Ajit Singh, Malkiat Singh son of Mangal Singh and Smt. Shashi Kanta daughter of Mangal Singh Vahati, resident of Lalahadi comprised in Khasra No. 2374, measuring 3bK 18M and Khasra Nos. 2375 and 2892 measuring 17K-13M totalling 56K-17M for only Rs 8,000 in a benami transaction. The mutation for the sale deed was entered on 26-7-1990 vide No. 3836 i.e. on the very next day by taking special care and interest, although under the Revenue Rules, it was required to be done in public. This deed and mutation was accepted and entered by the then Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Haroli, (Una) Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma. The mutation for the sale deed was entered on 26-7-1990 vide No. 3836 i.e. on the very next day by taking special care and interest, although under the Revenue Rules, it was required to be done in public. This deed and mutation was accepted and entered by the then Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Haroli, (Una) Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma. in these proceedings, Smt. Gita Sharma was not present in person. On the other band, one Sh. Harbans Singh son of Hakam Singh, an employee of Sub-Tehsil Haroli appeared on her behalf. On the Registry, only Rs. 640 worth of stamp were affixed. According to the Five Years average at that time the rate of the land in the said village was Rs. 2,696 20 only. Calculating at this average rate, for 56K-17M the cost "comes to Rs, 1,53,278.97 only. At this cost the stamp fee at the rate of 8% and registration fee at the rate of 2% comes to Rs. 12,246.27 plus Rs. 902.00 totalling Rs. 13,148, 97 was payable to the State Government, But Sh. Rajmani Tripathi, Deputy Commissioner, Shri Durga Dutt Sharma, Sub-Registrar Haroli by misusing their posts and powers acted against the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Stamps Act and by entering into conspiracy have caused undue loss to the Government and had for themselves gained an undue benefit In this deal, an undue loss of about Rs. 12,508.97 has been caused to the Government as stamp fee. This 56K-17M land was purchased for Rs 8,000 only i.e. at the rate of Rs. 140 per kanal. Also by not evaluating the land at the five years’ average, but at a lesser rate Sh. Rajmani Tripathi and Smt. Gita Sharma by entering into a conspiracy have thus cheated and gained undue benefit to the tune of 1,45,278.00 only. According to the seller, Sh. Ajit Singh, he sold this land to Sh. Rajmani Tripathi, the then Deputy Commissioner, Una for Rs. 35,000. It was also found that this land is being looked after by Shri Rajmani Tripathi and the seller know Smt. Gita Sharma. Shri Rajmani Tripathi, IAS and the then Naib Tehsildar Sh. According to the seller, Sh. Ajit Singh, he sold this land to Sh. Rajmani Tripathi, the then Deputy Commissioner, Una for Rs. 35,000. It was also found that this land is being looked after by Shri Rajmani Tripathi and the seller know Smt. Gita Sharma. Shri Rajmani Tripathi, IAS and the then Naib Tehsildar Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma, Sub-Tehsil Haroli, have committed the offence under sections 11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sections 218, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C., sections 81 and 82 of Indian Registration Act and section 64 of the Indian Stamps Act and Smt. Gita Sharma, wife of Shyam Sunder Sharma committed the offence under sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. The four copies of the F.I.R. have been prepared and are being sent to the officers etc............ Sd/- Chain Singh. Inspector.” 2. Similarly, FXR. No. 3 of 1992 dated 4-3-1992 under sections 2l8, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C., sections 11 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sections 81 and 82 of the Indian Registration Act and section 64 of the Indian Stamps Act was registered against the petitioner, which reads as under ;— "As per letter No. 1293 dated 3-3-1992, I.G Police. Vigilaace-2, Employment, H.P., Shimla, received through Head constable Ram Kumar vide letter No. ACD/NA-1l6-IAS-1/91 dated 29-11-1991 against Sh, Rajmani Tripathi, former D.C. Una as per investigation file and interim report, which is attached, in which registration of a case against the accused has been ordered. As per the investigation report, Sh Rajmani Tripathi, I.A.S., who is at present posted as Joint Secretary (Revenue), H.P. Shimla had remained posted as District Collector, Una from October, 1986 to November, 1990. As he was issueless, he adopted Km. Pushp, daughter of his real elder brother, Sheshmani Trigunayat son of Shri Shri Ram, Brahmin, resident of Mahapur, P.O. Bhanwarpur, Tehsil Machhishahar, District Jaunpur, U.P. and married her to Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma son of Shri Hako Kam Sharma, resident of Gugalahar (Una). After marriage, she was named as Smt Gita Sharma. In his tenure as D.C. vide Registry No 534, dated 28-11-1989, bought the land of Zamidar Shri Joginder Singh son of Hira Nand Rajput, resident of Village Nangal Khurd, Sub-Tehsil Haroli District Una, comprised in Khasra No. 2373, measuring 78K-09M for only for Rs. After marriage, she was named as Smt Gita Sharma. In his tenure as D.C. vide Registry No 534, dated 28-11-1989, bought the land of Zamidar Shri Joginder Singh son of Hira Nand Rajput, resident of Village Nangal Khurd, Sub-Tehsil Haroli District Una, comprised in Khasra No. 2373, measuring 78K-09M for only for Rs. 9,000 in the name of this Gita Sharma and the Mutation No. 3565 of 6-12-1989 for this transfer was accepted within one week by taking special care and interest at Sub-Tehsil Haroli, which was against the revenue procedure one Shri Vipan Kumar son of Sh. Kishan Chand, resident of Una, who is a deed-writer by profession, at Sub Tehsil Haroli, appeared on behalf of Smt. Gita Sharma at both the above mentioned proceedings. On the above said registry, only Rs 720 was affixed as stamp fee At that time, the five years’ average of the land in that village was Rs. 2,696.20 per kanal and was Rs 134.81 per mark. At this rate, the value of land measuring 78K-O9M comes to Rs 2,11,516 89 on which the stamp fee at the rate of 8% payable comes to Rs. 16,821.31 and registration fee at the rate of 27 comes to Rs 1,839.00 only. But only Rs, 720 has been paid at stamp fee. Thus, in this transaction, the State Government has been made to suffer a loss of Rs. 17,940 31 and has thus himself taken the benefit. In this transaction, Sh, Rajmani Tripathi by this influence as D.C., Una, has misused his powers by buying 78K 09M land for only Rs. 9,000 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 115 per kanal approximately and by undervaluing the land at the five years’ average rate has given undue benefit of about Rs 2,02,516,00 to himself and his brothers daughter It is impossible to get land at the rate of Rs 115 par kanal at a place, like Una. It has also been found that the said land is being looked after the accounts of produce are being kept by Sh Rajmani Tripathi. In this cheating was the Jesuit of a conspiracy in which Sh Tripathi, the then Naib Tehsildar, Haroli Sh. Durga Dan Sharma, purchaser Smt. Gita Sharma seller Sh. Joginder Singh are involved. It has also been found that the said land is being looked after the accounts of produce are being kept by Sh Rajmani Tripathi. In this cheating was the Jesuit of a conspiracy in which Sh Tripathi, the then Naib Tehsildar, Haroli Sh. Durga Dan Sharma, purchaser Smt. Gita Sharma seller Sh. Joginder Singh are involved. Sh Tripathi and Sh .Durga Dutt by misusing their posts and powers have committed the offence under sections 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sections 218, 410 and 120 B of I.P.C and also under section 81 and 82 of the Indian Registration Act, section 64 of the Indian Stamps Act Also Smt Gita Sharma and Joginder Singh have com« milled the offence under sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. sections 64 of Indian Registration Act, section 64 of Indian Stamps Act. Four copies of the F.I.R. have been prepared and are being sent to the officers and are also being entered in the register........ 4-3-1992, Sd/-Chain Singh, Inspector, Una." 3. Similarly, F.I.R. No, 4/92, dated 4-3-1992 under sections 218, 420, 120-B of I.P.C., sections 11, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner, which reads as under :— "As per letter No, 1293, dated 3-3-1992, I.G. Police Vigilance-Employment, H.P. Shimla, received through Head Constable Ram Kumar bearing Enquiry No. ACD/NR-116/IAS-l/91, dated 29-11-1991 against Sh. Rajmani Tripathi, former Deputy Commissioner, Una alongwith the Investigation file and the interim report, attached therewith, wherein registration of a case against the accused has been ordered, It has been found on Investigation that Shri Rajmani Tripathi, I.S.A. who is at present working as Joint Secretary (Revenue) H.P. Shimla, had remained posted as Deputy Commissioner, Una from October, 1986 to November, 1990. One Joginder Singh s/o Hira Nand, resident of village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil Haroli made an application, dated Nil, in his office for exchange of his comprised in Khasra Nos. 2314, 2938, 3044 and 653, measuring 62K-I2M situate at village Nangal Khurd, Sub-Tehsil Haroli, District Una, because he is not able to look after his land. The above-said application was sent on 23-3-1990 by Sh Rajmani Tripathi under his orders to the Naib Tehsildar, Haroli, Shri Durga Dutt Sharma, who in turn sent the same for required report to the Field Kanungo Sh. The above-said application was sent on 23-3-1990 by Sh Rajmani Tripathi under his orders to the Naib Tehsildar, Haroli, Shri Durga Dutt Sharma, who in turn sent the same for required report to the Field Kanungo Sh. Mansa Ram without conducting any proceedings at the venue said in their report that the property of Sh. Joginder Singh is valued higher and had no trees on it and they were in favour of the exchange of the said land. Similarly, Sh Durga Dutt Sharma, Naib Tehsildar in his letter No.563/Reader, dated 31-5-1990 recommended to the Collector, Una that land of Joginder Singh was valued at 124-3/4 Annas The Governments land has valued at 62-1/4 Annas and the land has no trees on it, There is no loss to the Government in the above-said exchange. Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma also made the recommendations without visiting the site. On the file, Patwari Hari Dass in the Office of Collector made a note on 5.6-1990 that according to the instructions of the Government letter No 9-13/71 Rev. B. dated 4-8-1987, a ban has been imposed on exchange. Inspite of this, the then Collector, Una Sh. Rajmani Tripathi, by his order dated 7-11-1990, sanctioned the said exchange. The exchange came to the knowledge of the residents at the time of mutation on which Sh Raghbir Singh son of Sadhu Ram, resident of Nangal Khurd applied for a review of the Mutation No 3649, dated 31-1-1991.- On his application, the present District Collector asked for the report of the Tehsildar, The Tehsildar, after investigation of the land reported on 9-7-1991 that the land of Joginder Singh is classified as Khal and Mer whereas Government land is classified as Shamlat Deh Charaul on which there are hundreds of trees of different types and on this land Village tenants have fight of passage, grazing, burial place and P.W.D. road etc. By this exchange Joginder Singh has gained immensely and the Government has suffered a loss. The residents of the village and the Panchayat also opposed this exchange This exchange was done with special interest and prompness because Sh, Rajmani Tripathi had bought from Sh, Joginder Singh, in Benami, for his daughter, Pushp alias Smt. Gita Sharma, the land measuring 78K 9M comprised in Khasra No 2373 situate in Deh Nangal Khurd for Rs 9f000 only i.e. at the rate of Rs 115 per kanal on 28-11-1989. In this deal, Sh Rajmani Tripathi by undervaluing the land has taken the undue benefit of lakhs of rupees. Under this obligation Sh. Rajmani Tripathi has unduly benefited Sh. Joginder Singh by this exchange. Sh. Rajmani Tripathi has done this exchange after the order of his transfer had been published by exerting undue influence and taking special interest In the cheating and conspiracy Sh Rajmani Tripathi, Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma, Naib Tehsildar Haroli, Field Kanungo, Mansa Ram, Patwari Nangal Khurd Arvind Kumar and Surinder pal Singh by misusing their posts and powers have caused the Government an undue loss and given Joginder Singh an undue benefit and have thus committed an offence under sections 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sections 218, 420, 120-B, I.P.C and Joginder Singh son of Hira Nand has committed an offence under section 420, 120 B, I.P.C. as co accused Thus the present F.I.R. is being written in four carbon copies....... Sd/- Chain Singh, Inspector.” 4. Similarly, F.I.R. No, 5/92, dated 4-3-1992 under sections 218, 420, 120-B, I.P.C , section 11, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 81, 82 of Indian Registration Act, was registered against the petitioner which reads as under :— "As per letter No. 1293, dated 3-3-1992 of I G Police Vigilance-Employment H.P Shimla received through Head Constable Ram Kumar bearing enquiry No ACD NR-116/ IAS-1/91, dated 29-11-1991 against Shri Rajmani Tripathi, Former D.C. Una alongwith the investigation file and the interim report, attached therewith wherein registration of a case against the accused has been ordered It has been found from the Investigation report that the proprietors S/Sh. Janta Raj, Gulshan, Sham Lal, Hakam Singh etc. of village Nangal Kalan, Sub-Division Harauli, District Una and share holders, whose land bearing Khasra No. 112-D measuring 9 Kalal 1 Maria, 1/2 share of which is in possession of Jagdish Ram son of Happo and 1/2 share of the same in possession of Karam Chand v Bal Kishan. Tilak Raj sons of Ram Chand resident of village as their tenant. These non-cultivating (Gair Marusi) owners had got the ownership rights under section 104 (3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 vide mutation No. 23710, dated 8-6-198P, Aforesaid mutation was entered by Halqa Patwari, Sh. Jit Singh and was attested by former Kanungo, Sh. Satdev Sh arena and was sanctioned by Naib-Tehsildar, Sh. These non-cultivating (Gair Marusi) owners had got the ownership rights under section 104 (3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 vide mutation No. 23710, dated 8-6-198P, Aforesaid mutation was entered by Halqa Patwari, Sh. Jit Singh and was attested by former Kanungo, Sh. Satdev Sh arena and was sanctioned by Naib-Tehsildar, Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma, Sub-Division, Harauli That Rajmani Tripathi, IAS is now working as Joint Secretary (Revenue) H.P. from October, 1986 to November, 1990, he remained posted as Deputy Commissioner of District Una. He purchased land from Jagdish Ram son of Hako Ram measuring 40/181 share in Khasra No. 1120 by way of benami transaction in the name of his elder brother, Shri Shishmani Tripathi for a sum of Rs. 4,000 vide Registration Sale Deed No., 296, dated 19-7-1988, which transaction as per statement of Shri Jagdish was finalized by Shri Tripathi, former D.C. Una in his office and he had also been enticed for giving a job in his office and Rs. 1100 was paid to him by former Naib-Tehsildar, Harauli, who registered his sale deed. As per sections 113 and 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the land whose ownership has been given under section 104 (3) of the Act cannot be transferred for a period of 10 years as amended 15 years, Shri Tripathi, former D.C. former Naib-Tehsildar Harauli, Sh. Durga Dutt Sharma and former Kanungo Sh, Satdev Sharma and Patwari Jit Singh, Halqa Nangal Kalan and District Revenue Officer were fully aware of those provisions of the Act they taking undue advantage of their position, committed offence under sections 218, 420, 120 B of I.P.C. and under section 11, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under section 81 and 82 of the Indian Registration Act and in this conspiracy Sh. Shishmani S/o Sh. Sri Ram Brahmin, resident of village Chauhan Kurali, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla and Sh Sushil Tripathi, who is the brother of Sh. Shishmani Tripathi, who is presently working in Civil Supplies Corporation. Shishmani S/o Sh. Sri Ram Brahmin, resident of village Chauhan Kurali, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla and Sh Sushil Tripathi, who is the brother of Sh. Shishmani Tripathi, who is presently working in Civil Supplies Corporation. Centre Harauli, District Una .was presented from the side of Sh, Shishmani in Mutation No. 2387 dated 1r8-1988, whose act is covered under section 420, 120-B I.P.C In the aforesaid investigation it has also been found that Shri Rajmani Tripathi, who was Deputy Commissioner, Una and during his tenure vide Registered Sale Deed No. 309 dated 6-4-1990 in the name of his elder brother of Sh. Shish Mani C/o his second brother Suresh Mani Tripathi also purchased in Benami from Shri Jiwan Kumar s/o Rajinder Prasad r/o Raipur Soura, District Una, land comprised in Khasra No. 547 total measuring 6.24, Hect and vide Mutation No 47 land measuring 8.43 Hect. was also purchased and on this aforesaid land one pucca house was also constructed. Shri Shish Mani is a resident of Village Mahapur. P.O. Bhanwarpur, District Jaunpur, U.P. and in the afore-mentioned Registry and mutation no proof was obtained by the Sub-Registrar which clearly told that Shri Shishmani is not an Agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh. It is further stated that Sh Shishmani was never present at the time of registration and he is not known to any of the seller and Shri Rajmani Tripathi misutilized the power and post for the purchase of the same in Benami and during the course of investigation it was also found that Sh Rajmani Tripathi, who was also working on an important post in District Shimla as well as in Sirmour and has also purchased in Benami land in the name of his brother Sh. Shishmani Tribhunatak for a very less price though the land was very precious. For copies of the F.I.R. were prepared ..... Sd /- Chain Singh, Inspector.” 5. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner is a Senior Civil Servant belonging to the IAS Cadre and is at present posted as Labour Commissioner-cum-Director Employment Exchange with the respondent-State Government. 6 All the above four F.I.Rs. were registered against him when he was Deputy Commissioner, Una w.e.f. 1986 to 1990 According to the petitioner, a bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that no case is made out against him. 6 All the above four F.I.Rs. were registered against him when he was Deputy Commissioner, Una w.e.f. 1986 to 1990 According to the petitioner, a bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that no case is made out against him. The allegation is that while he was posted at Una as Deputy Commissioner, he got purchased Hand measuring 56 Kanal 17 Marlas in the name of hh daughter Smt Gita Sharma for Rs. 8.000 in a benami transaction with the connivance of the revenue authorities and got a mutation in her favour on 26-7-1990, i.e. as per the allegations made out in the F.I R the mutation was sanctioned in violation of the Revenue Rules by taking special care on the very next day whereas this allegation is absolutely wrong because the mutation was got sanctioned after 21 days of the registration of the sale deed which too was as per the revenue rules. No revenue rules have been violated nor there are any allegations to that effect. The mutation was sanctioned in public Moreover, the land was purchased by the daughter of the petitioner and he had nothing to do with it. It is no where stated that he misused his position. 7. Another allegation in the F.I.R. is that the land was under valued for the purpose of causing stamp duty loss to the State. According to the FIR five years average rate at that time was Rs 26v6 20 only. Therefore, the entire consideration comes to Rs. 1 53,278.97 whereon a total stamp duty was payable of Rs. 13,148.97, although for the registry the stamp duty of Rs, 640 was paid. This allegation according to the petitioner is absolutely concocted and not based on any revenue record. The Five Year Austan Table prepared by the revenue authorities shows that the average at that time was Rs 20 per kanal of gair mumkin and the land being Gair Mum kin Khad i.e. worse than Gair Mumkin land, therefore, the land cannot be said as undervalued, A copy of the 5 years Annual Average Rate quality wise is Annexure P-1 Similarly, F.I.R. No 3/92 has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner allowed the application moved by one Joginder Singh for exchange of land measuring 62 Kanal 18 Marlas on the ground that he was not able to look after that land. The application was forwarded by the petitioner on March 23, 1990 under his order to the Naib Tehsildar, Haroli. He further marked the same to the Field Kanungo and Patwari of the area on March 26, 1990 The area Patwari, Nangal Khurd, Sh Surinder Pal Singh and Arvind Kumar Sharma and Field Kanungo Sh. Mansa Ram without conducting any proceedings at the venue made a report that the property of Sh. Joginder Singh is valued higher and had no trees on it and shown their favour for exchange with the Government land. Similar recommendation was made by Naib Tehsil Jar, Durga Dutt Sharma vide his letter No. 563/Reader, dated 31-5-1990 to the Collector Una wherein he stated that the land of Joginder Singh was valued at 124-3/4 Annas and that of 62-1/4 Annas. It was also reported that there was no tree on it. The report of the Naib Tehsildar also stated that there would be no loss to the Government in the above said exchange. According to the F.I.R.. though the Patwari had made a report that there was a ban on exchange vide Government letter No 9-13/71, dated 24-8-1987, even then the petitioner who was the collector at Una vide his order dated November 7, 1990 sanctioned the said exchange. 8. Similarly, FIR. No. 4/92 has been challenged on the ground that the said allegations made in the FIR. against him when he was holding the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Una, and purchased the land measuring 78 Kanals 9 Marlas in the name of his daughter Mrs. Gita Sharma from Sh Joginder Singh for a sum of Rs 9,000 and maturation was got sanctioned on 6-12-1992. It has been further alleged that one Vipin Kumar, Deed Writer appeared on behalf of his daughter Geeta Sharma, in the above mentioned proceedings. It has further been alleged that the land was under-valued as the average price at that time was Ps. 2696 20ps. per Kanal, on the basis of which the total consideration comes to Rs 2.1,516 99Ps, whereon stamp fee as well as registration cost comes to Rs. 16,821 31 + Rs. 1839 00, whereas only Rs 720 was paid as stamp duty etc thus there was a loss of Rs 17,940 to the Government. 2696 20ps. per Kanal, on the basis of which the total consideration comes to Rs 2.1,516 99Ps, whereon stamp fee as well as registration cost comes to Rs. 16,821 31 + Rs. 1839 00, whereas only Rs 720 was paid as stamp duty etc thus there was a loss of Rs 17,940 to the Government. By the influence of D.C. Una, he exercised his power in this direction as it was impossible to have a rate of the land at the rate of Rs. 115 per Kanal The accounts of the land was alleged to have been maintained by the petitioner. 9. Lastly, F.I.R. No. 5/92 has been challenged on the ground that the allegations therein are that when he was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, Una he entered into a deal with one Jagdish Ram for the purchase of land measuring about 2 Kanals. The agreement was entered into for purchase of the said land by summoning the said Jagdish Ram to his office and also enticed him that he would be offered a government job. The sale consideration was Rs. 4,000 and that Rs 1100 were paid before the then Naib Tehsildar Haroli who had registered the document. The said Jagdish Ram has nowhere stated in his statement that the petitioner exerted any pressure on him to enter into the said agreement/transaction. This statement clearly indicates that the vendor by way of free will agreed to execute the sale deed and accepted the sale consideration as paid to him He did not make any complaint against the petitioner. In so far as the alleged enticement is concerned, the same according to the petitioner is wrong and he never gave an enticement to Sh Jagdish Ram regarding the Government job. The allegation has only been levelled to make out a case against the petitioner, 10. According to the F.I.Rs. Sh. Jagdish Ram had got the tenancy rights under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and in view of section 104(3) he was not competent to transfer it for a period of 10 years, lateron amended as 15 years The petitioner along-with other co-accused fully knowing the provisions of law, violated those provisions and conspired to grab the land while misusing their official position. 11. 11. In the replies filed by the State, a preliminary objection has been taken that the petition is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 1146. On merits it has been stated that the High Court at this stage cannot go behind the FIR and thwart the investigation and subsequent prosecution if any. The law must be allowed to take its own course. On merits also, the allegation on the grounds taken in the petition have been controverted. 12. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Ashu Punchhi, Advocate, who it must be stated has argued his case with great ability and persuasion. He has reiterated in arguments what has been stated in the petitions, and also I have heard Sh. V.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State who has vehemently opposed these petitions, 13. On behalf of the petitioner, his learned Counsel has submitted that under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanction of the competent Magistrate was mandatory, which has not been done. As regards this submission, there is no sanction order of the Magistrate on the record, in view of this the presumption automatically arises that no prior sanction has been obtained as required under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which in the considered view of this Court is a mandatory provision. Therefore, on this ground the prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law. 14. It has also been argued that as per the annual 5 years average statement, the value of the land is much less than what has been assessed by the State in their written replies. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale of the land was for an inadequate consideration and that loss of stamp duty for loss of considerable amount has been caused to the Government. There appears to be force in this argument also inasmuch as extracts from the five years annual valuation statement of the land quality-wise, the sale consideration cannot be deemed to be inadequate in the present case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the observations of the Apex Court in the case reported as State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lai and others, AIR 1992 SC 604. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the observations of the Apex Court in the case reported as State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lai and others, AIR 1992 SC 604. He has in particular referred to para 108 at page 629 of the said report. Vide the same, seven categories of cases have been enumerated by way of illustrations where the Court has the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 15. In view of the fact that there is no prior sanction of the Magistrate, as a mandatory requirement under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also the fact that the price of the land in view of the documentary proof on the record does not appear to be under-valued, the categories No.1, 2 and 3 come into play in the present case. These being the exceptions wherein the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, Cr P.C. can interfere in an appropriate case, as in the present one. It has lastly been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Sword of Damocles has been hanging over his head for the last five years or so. This is so, because the F.I.Rs in these cases were registered on the same date i.e. 4-3-1992. More than five years have passed and the case has not made any headway This, according to the petitioner, is itself a sufficient ground to quash the F.I.R./proceedings as there it delay, which is not attributable to the petitioner in the present case, in completing the investigation and putting the challan in Court, if so required, 16. I find force in this argument also. It is a fit case to exercise the inherent power by this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. as the suspense of the prolonged criminal proceedings against him is bound to cause mental agony to him and also shatter his peace of mind, farther interfering with his day to day work as a responsible Senior Officer of the Himachal State. 17. In view of the above, a case has been made out to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. 18. 17. In view of the above, a case has been made out to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court as well as to secure the ends of justice. 18. In fairness to the State, the learned Assistant Advocate General has also very lucidly argued on its behalf and has referred to Head Note E of Bhajan Lals case supra. It has been held that in the following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 2/6 or under section 482, Cr.P.C. interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 19. Applying the above observations of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that the prosecution case suffers from various loopholes and short comings which would have the effect of driving a nail into its coffin, 20. As already stated above, there is no prior sanction of the Magistrate as is absolutely mandatory under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ; there is no undervaluation of land in the present case, in view of the documentary proof submitted by the petitioner and lastly due to the inordinate delay in completion of the investigation in these cases. Therefore, to my mind, it is one of those rarest of rare cases where this Court should exercise its inherent power under section 482, Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and also to secure the ends of justice. 21. In this context, it must be mentioned that the petitioner is a responsible citizen being a high ranking officer belonging to the I.A.S. Cadre, the long drawn out delay of seven years hitherto is itself a punishment for him, 22. In fairness to the learned Assistant Advocate General he has cited the case law on the point that this Court should not exercise its inherent power and quash the F.I.Rs. In fairness to the learned Assistant Advocate General he has cited the case law on the point that this Court should not exercise its inherent power and quash the F.I.Rs. They are M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar and another, AIR 1992 SC 1930, State of Bihar v Raj Narain Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1308, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and others v. Niyamavedi Represented by its Member K Nandini, Advocate and others, (1995) 3 SCC 601, The first cited ruling is to the effect that where the investigation into an offence is still on its way quashing of the F.I.R by the High Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. is not proper. But the facts herein are different as cited above and there has been considerable delay in completion of the investigation, which is not attributable to the petitioner, therefore, this Ruling is of no avail to the prosecution. In the second case, it was held that where there is certain discrepancy in F.I.R. and statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, prejudging by High Court without affording reasonable opportunity to prosecution to substantiate its allegation interference at preliminary stage under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the F.I.R. etc. is not permissible. The facts, on the face to it, are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and therefore this Ruling also does not apply, In the last cited Ruling, it has been held that the Court should not disclose material contained in the police diaries and statements recorded during investigation stage in criminal matters, nor should it make comments on manner of investigation or make observations amounting to interference in investigation; Yet at the same time, it has been held therein that the High Court was right in expressing general view that the investigation agency must act in an efficient and vigilant manner without being pressurised. 23. In the present case, investigation agency has been tardy and lethargic in its efforts to complete the same and although five years have elapsed since registration of the F.I.Rs. investigation is still nowhere 1 under completion therefore, this Ruling also does not apply to the facts of this case. 24. 23. In the present case, investigation agency has been tardy and lethargic in its efforts to complete the same and although five years have elapsed since registration of the F.I.Rs. investigation is still nowhere 1 under completion therefore, this Ruling also does not apply to the facts of this case. 24. For the reasons recorded above, ail these petitions are accepted and in exercise of my inherent power under section 482, Cr.P.C in order to prevent the abuse of process of Court and also to secure the ends of justice, all the four F.I.Rs, aforementioned are hereby quashed, qua the petitioner only. Petition allowed.