JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal miscellaneous application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred to quash the FIR No. 331/2001, P.S. CPS, SB, Jaipur dated 10.9.2001 under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short "the Act" hereinafter) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioner. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that one Mr. Rajesh Solanki made a complaint to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Jodhpur regarding demand of money by the petitioner for giving correct report of injured Shantilal pertaining to FIR No. 193/01, P.S. Mandore, Jodhpur dated 2001. The said complaint was made on 5.9.2001. The FIR in extenso is quoted as under: " Jheku~ th] ,Mh0,l0ih0,0lh0Mh0 tks/kiqjA fo"k;%& esfMdy T;wfj"V o muds lgk;d ,e0th0,p0 tks/kiqj }kjk fj'or dh ekWax ds lEcU/k esaA egksn; th] fuosnu gS fd esjh gksVy tks/kk jh <+k.kh ds eSustj ij tku ysok geys esa eqdnek ua0 193@2001 Fkkuk e.Mksj esa fnukad 1-9-2001 dks ntZ gqvkA eSustj 'kkfUryky dh ,e0,y0lh0 fjiksVZ ckcr eSa ,e0th0,p0 MkWa0,u0,l0 dksBkjh ls tkdj dy feyk vkSj muls ckr dj dgk fd esjs eSustj dh fjiksVZ vki iqfyl Fkkus esa lgh&lgh fHktok,a] bl ij mUgksaus dgk fd lgh fjiksVZ o tYnh fHktok nwaxk ysfdu [kpkZ djuk iM+sxk vkSj mUgksaus esjs ls rhu gtkj :i;s dh ekax dh rc eSusa muls iSls de djus dks dgk rks mUgksaus dgk ykLV 2]000@& ( nks gtkj :i;s ) yxsaxsa vxj gks rks esjs lgk;d jktsUnz fxjh dks ns nks fjiksVZ es lgh o tYnh fHktok nwaxkA eSa uktk;t :i;s ugha nsuk pkgrk sgwaA izkFkZuk&i= is'k gSa dk;Zokgh djkosaA fnukad 5-9-2001A " 3. As per complaint, a trap was laid on 6.9.2001 and co-accused Rajendra Giri was trapped and tainted money of Rs. 2,000/- was recovered from him. After recovery of money and completion of the formalities a un-numbered FIR was sent to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jaipur, which was registered as FIR No. 331/2001 on 10.9.2001. Thereafter, the Anti Corruption Bureau started investigation, arrested the petitioner and released on bail on 6.9.2001. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following contentions:- (1) That the money was not recovered from the petitioner, though, the complainant stated in FIR that the money was demanded by the petitioner, but the Investigating Officer trapped co-accused Rajendra Giri and the money was recovered from him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following contentions:- (1) That the money was not recovered from the petitioner, though, the complainant stated in FIR that the money was demanded by the petitioner, but the Investigating Officer trapped co-accused Rajendra Giri and the money was recovered from him. The Investigating Officer did not wait for handing over the said money by Rajendra Giri to the petitioner. If that would have been done, the inference could have been taken that the money was demanded by the petitioner. (2) That the case was registered on 1.9.2001 and the injured Shantilal was examined on 3.9.2001. The petitioner was not on duty either on 1.9.2001 or on 2.9.2001 to prepare the injury report. On 3.9.2001, the injured came and his wound was already stitched. There was only one single injury on his person and that too was simple in nature. The Medico Legal Report was prepared then and there and was signed by the petitioner. The report was also written in the register kept in the hospital and it was entered in duplicate. It was the responsibility of the concerned clerk to send the said M.L.C. report to the concerned Police Station and it was also the duty of the concerned Police Station to collect it from the hospital. But, a requisition letter from the concerned Police Station was received on 7.9.2001 for getting the MLC Report, which was already prepared on 3.9.2001. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no question to take demand money from the complainant on 4.9.2001 (as stated in the complaint using the word (3) That on 4.9.2001, no work was pending with the petitioner and there was no motive or occasion to demand the money for taking favour the complainant particularly, in view of the nature of the injury. (4) That once, the injury report was singed on 3.9.2001, there was no question of demand of money as there were no chances of changing the report, which was already entered in register and date and number was also given to the said report. The said injury report was mentioned at Sr. No. 2424 and on 3.9.2001, last serial number of the entry of injury report is 2433, meaning thereby no question of manipulation by the petitioner. The said injury report was mentioned at Sr. No. 2424 and on 3.9.2001, last serial number of the entry of injury report is 2433, meaning thereby no question of manipulation by the petitioner. On 3.9.2001, the injury report was made and both copies (one is to be kept by the hospital and another is given to the police) were ready for despatch. The report has been lodged falsely only to harass the petitioner with some ulterior motive. (5) That there was no occasion of abusing the position held by the petitioner in the above circumstances. (6) That during the course of trial (relating to said M.L.C., report) and decision by the concerned Sessions Court, the accused were acquitted of the charges 452, 307/149, 341, 342 and 323 Indian Penal Code and were convicted only under sections 147, 323/149 Indian Penal Code. Even, injured Shantilal PW-12 (complainant of the present FIR) in Sessions Case turned hostile. The FIR in that case was in the hand-writing of the complainant Shantilal himself and it was lodged at 11.00 p.m. on 1.9.2001. He came for his treatment in the Casuality Ward on that day at 9.55 p.m. The wound was stitched and thereafter, he went to lodge the FIR. This goes to prove that there was no serious injury and the report prepared by the petitioner was. correct. He did not turn up for his examination on the next day i.e. 2.9.2001. At one side, he came late for examination and -n the other side, the false FIR was lodged by the complainant on 5.9.2001 implicating the petitioner who was holding the various administrative charges in the hospital. There was no injury on the person of Shantilal by a blunt weapon and report prepared by the petitioner was correct. The petitioner was busy in giving evidence in two Court cases on 4.9.2001 and did not prepare a single injury report on that day. On 5.9.2001, the petitioner was out of station for giving evidence in Court at Pipar City. The allegation of the complainant that the petitioner demanded money on 4.9.2001 is baseless and frivolous, especially on the ground that the complaint did not mention the time and place at which the complainant met to the petitioner and demand was made from him. Further, the said demand is said to be for correct injury report. The allegation of the complainant that the petitioner demanded money on 4.9.2001 is baseless and frivolous, especially on the ground that the complaint did not mention the time and place at which the complainant met to the petitioner and demand was made from him. Further, the said demand is said to be for correct injury report. When the injury was simple in nature and the petitioner prepared the injury report on 3.9.2001, how the petitioner could demand the money for preparing the injury report which falls under section 324 Indian Penal Code. (7) That no incriminating article/circumstance was found in search of the house of the petitioner by the police on 6.9.2001. Rather, the recovery of visiting card of R.K. Solanki and the blank paper bearing one telephone number of Hotel Paradise from the person of Rajendra Giri goes to show that there was some dialogue between Rajendra Giri and the complainant. The name of the petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily. It was duty of the police to verify the story of demand of money before laying down the trap but, nothing was done. (8) No recovery was made from the person. Even after suspension of the co-accused Rajendra Giri. The petitioner was retained in service, because there was no prima facie case against the petitioner. (9) That as per statement of Sachin and Jethu Singh, the injury report register was recovered from the table of Rajendra Giri, which was later on shown to have been recovered from the table of the petitioner. 5. Therefore, as per above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the FIR qua against the petitioner be quashed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments.: (1) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . (2) Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996(7) JT SC 6 : 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 505 (3) Prakash Chandra Sharma v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) Crimes 355 . (4) L.K. Advani v. C.B.I. (Delhi) 1997(4) Crimes 1 . (5) M/s. Shri International Finance Ltd. v. M.G. Narayna, 1998 Cr. L.J. 2220 . (6) Mrs. Rupinder Kaur v. State, 2000 Cr.L.J. p. 1520. (7) Vinod Walia v. C.B.I., 1998(1) Crimes 300 (8) Suryabhan v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr. L.J. 107 . (9) State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh Malhotra, 2001 Cr.L.R. p. 49 SC. (10) Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr. L.J. 2220 . (6) Mrs. Rupinder Kaur v. State, 2000 Cr.L.J. p. 1520. (7) Vinod Walia v. C.B.I., 1998(1) Crimes 300 (8) Suryabhan v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 Cr. L.J. 107 . (9) State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh Malhotra, 2001 Cr.L.R. p. 49 SC. (10) Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr. L.J. 3155 . (11) Babulal Baj Pai v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J. p. 1383 . (12) State of U.P. v. Ram Asrey, 1990 Cr.L.R. 188 . (13) Bhanwar Singh and Govind Ram v. State of Raj., 2000(1) RCC p. 395 . (14) Amar Chandra Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1993(3) WLC (Raj.) 147 . (15) Kanju Prasad Ladiya v. State of M.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. p. 4400 . (16) Mohd. Yasin Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1968 RCC p. 324 . (17) Satish Chandra Sharma v. State (Delhi), 1968 (2) Crimes p. 102 . (18) Abdul Rasid Ansari v. State of U.P., 1993(2) Crimes 261 . (19) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tej Raj, 1990 Cr. L.J. 995 . (20) Panna Lal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 . (21) Gulam Mohammed v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1558 : 1980 Cr. L.R. (SC) 504 . (22) Hari Shanker Vijay Pal v. State of M.P., 1998(1) Crimes 549 . (23) P. Sirajuddin v. The State of Madras, 1971 Cr.L.J. p. 523 . (24) State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221 . (25) Manik Shrirang v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cr.L.J. 2268 . (26) Suraj Mal v. State of Delhi Administration, 1979 Cr.L.J. p. 1087 : 1979 Cr. L.R. (SC) 177 . (27) Som Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 665 : 1992 Cr. L.R. (SC) 64 . 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that u./s. 482 Cr.P.C., the case is not of an exceptional nature. The FIR have been registered and investigation started and completed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint/FIR does not disclose any offence. It was further argued that corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by first and second world war conditions. It was further argued that corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by first and second world war conditions. Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 7. As per argument of the learned Public Prosecutor, prima facie an offence under section 13(1)(d) (ii) of the Act is made out against the accused.Section 13 of the Act reads as under : "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal. (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other persons any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with. the official, functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if he, (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has at any time during the period of his offence, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income." 8. It was further argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petition should be dismissed permitting the petitioner to raise all contentions for discharge at the appropriate stage before the trial Court. In factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. It was further argued that Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaints and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 9. It was further argued that at this stage, the Court is to proceed on a premise that a criminal conspiracy was hatched and there was no reasonable grounds to dis-believe that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy as envisaged in Section 10 of the Evidence. Act. 10. The Court should not, except in extraordinary circumstances exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been launched. Act. 10. The Court should not, except in extraordinary circumstances exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been launched. The power of quashing a criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the following decisions. (1) Mahavir Prashad Gupta v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) p. 765 ; (2) State of M.P. and Ors. v. Shri Ram Singh, 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 188 ; (3) Shantilal v. Vimalchand and Ors., 2002 SCC (Cri) p. 23 ; (4) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors., 1999 SCC (Cri) p. 401 : 1999 Cr. L.R. (S.C.) 605 ; (5) State of Tamilnadu v. J. Jayalalitha, 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 469 ; (6) Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy, 2002 SCC (Cri) 85 . 12. I have considered the arguments advanced on either side and perused the precedents cited by the parties. 13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Cr.L.J. p. 527 a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the statutory provisions of the Court and the earlier decisions of the Court and held that in the following categories of cases the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a congizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer, without an order of a Magistrate as untemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 14. It was further held that the quashment of FIR or complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions. Where the averments in the complaint prima facie constitute offence in the absence of material to show that the continuance would be abuse of the process of the Court or would defeat the ends of justice, complaint cannot be quashed. 15. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, there is nothing to suggest that by abusing his position as a Medical Jurist (as a public servant), petitioner obtained pecuniary advantage. No prima facie case is made out against him. 15. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, there is nothing to suggest that by abusing his position as a Medical Jurist (as a public servant), petitioner obtained pecuniary advantage. No prima facie case is made out against him. There is no prima facie evidence either of demand or obtaining/taking illegal gratification in pursuance of so called that demand. There are no prospectus of cases enduing conviction. There is no active conduct of the petitioner directly or indirectly on the part of the petitioner in accepting or obtaining the said amount of Rs. 2,000/-, which as per the case of the prosecution, was received by co-accused Rajendra Giri. The accused-petiTioner was not present at the time of recovery of money from Rajendra Giri. There is also no evidence that Rajendra Giri took the said money at the instance of the petitioner. Otherwise, there was no need for Rajendra Giri to be bewildered first and denied having taken money from Rajesh Solanki. On intervening and suggestion made by Rajesh Solanki, Rajendra Giri implicated the petitioner. 16. Why the co-accused Rajendra Giri did not hand over the tainted money to the petitioner and immediately why the Investigating Officer did not wait? There are bleak chances of conviction and continuation of proceedings would be a mere procedural formality and wastage of time of Court. 17. No verification was done about the complaint before laying down a trap. In these circumstances, Court need not wait till the concerned Court take cognizance of the alleged offence and issuance of process against him. Even at this stage, if the complaint is taken at its face value, it does not disclose the offence much less cognizable against the accused. The only evidence available against the accused is the recovery of money from the co-accused Rajendra Giri and his statement, which in the eye of law is not legal evidence. There was no witness regarding the corroboration of demand from the complainant by the petitioner. Further, there was no work pending with the petitioner on 4.9.2001 when the report was ready. It is not expected from the Medical Jurist to do the work of a clerk (to despatch the report to the concerned Police Station). The police was to collect it and which was done only on 7.9.2001 after seizure of the record on 6.9.2001. Further, there was no work pending with the petitioner on 4.9.2001 when the report was ready. It is not expected from the Medical Jurist to do the work of a clerk (to despatch the report to the concerned Police Station). The police was to collect it and which was done only on 7.9.2001 after seizure of the record on 6.9.2001. Either on the day of trap or on 4.9.2001, the petitioner was not in a position to favour anybody. Nothing incriminating articles were recovered from the house of the petitioner on 6.9.2001. Even, at this stage, it was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to show that the accused was in a position to do the alleged favour on giving correct M.L.R. There was no chances of manipulation after numbering and entering into a register, which also was brought from the table of Rajendra Giri to the table of the petitioner as has been stated by the witnesses Sachin and Jethu Singh in their evidence. The money alleged to passed to Rajendra Giri cannot be said to be as a result of demand by the petitioner. The complainant in this case is an accomplice. One accomplice (complainant) cannot corroborate the evidence of another accomplice (co-accused Rajendra Giri). Though, it can be argued that their acceptance of money by co-accused Rajendra Giri bears upon itself the stamp of illegal gratification, as no-one accepts illegal gratification as a motive or reward without there-being a nexus between the acceptances and the purpose and the demand is implicit in this entire affair. But, in this case, the acceptance of the so called money is from the co-accused Raj endra. Giri and prima facie, it cannot be said that it was in pursuance of any demand on behalf of the petitioner. It also cannot be said that Rajendra Giri and the petitioner were in conspiracy to receive the said money. At the time of so called demand by the petitioner of money from the petitioner to issue correct report, no presence is alleged to be of Rajendra Giri. Therefore, more recovery from the co-accused Rajendra Giri does not prima facie prove that case against the petitioner is made out for initiating/completing investigation. 18. The judgments cited by the learned Public Prosecutor lay down the principles for quashing down the FIR. Therefore, more recovery from the co-accused Rajendra Giri does not prima facie prove that case against the petitioner is made out for initiating/completing investigation. 18. The judgments cited by the learned Public Prosecutor lay down the principles for quashing down the FIR. Mainly, the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) is the leading judgment and the principle laid down in the case is holding the field. Therefore, there appears to be no need to discuss and differentiate on facts those cases. But, certainly it can be said that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner under section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. There is no evidence of obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage abusing his presence as a public servant. Further, there is no evidence of conspiracy. There is no evidence before whom the said money was demanded. n totality if the case is taken at its face value in its entirety, no case is made out against the accused-petitioner. The petitioner was not joined with the trap proceedings. 19. In the opinion of the Court, the case of a rarest of rare cases and of an exceptional nature and to prevent the abuse of the process and in the interest of justice, the FIR and subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the FIR qua petitioner are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. It is clarified that the opinion expressed by this Court would not effect the case either of co-accused Rajendra Giri or of the prosecution against Rajendripeither way.Petition allowed. *******