JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code of Criminal Procedure. in short) has been filed with a prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 23.5.2000, Annexure-1, lodged by Shri Binod Bihari Patel, Inspector of Vigilance, Sambalpur, so far as it relates to the Petitioner, u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'P.C. Act'), which has been registered by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur, as Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000. It may be noted here that during pendency of this application, charge-sheet against the Petitioner has been filed. 2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that on 23.5.2000 the Inspector, Vigilance, Sambalpur, lodged the FIR, Annexure-1, alleging the therein that one Anil Kumar Chatterjee while posted as Forest Range Officer, Kuanrmunda Forest Range in Sundergarh district, abusing his official position during 1992-93 had issued number of false Timber Transit Permits in favour of different persons without any supporting materials thereby putting the Govt. to heavy loss. An enquiry being conducted against said Chatterjee, it was found that he had issued T.T. Permits 53465/65/529/535/3121. dated 6.12.1992 in favour of one D.K. Ray of Puri showing transportation of Sal sizes 103 pieces, teak sizes 153 pieces, teak door 250 pieces, pannel shutters 16 pieces and window shutters 34 pieces stated to have been purchased as per cash memos. of Orissa Forest Development Corporation, Kalunga Saw Mill bearing No. 9214/222 dated 23.10.1992. On enquiry, the record of OFDC, Kalunga Saw Mill, however, disclosed that no such cash memo, against which the Range Officer had issued the T.T. Permits had been issued. Similarly the said Range Officer had also issued T.T. Permit No. 902/31/546/562 dated 17.3.1993 for 488 pieces of Sal sizes of 230.45 cft. in favour of one B.K. Das from Rourkela to Bhubaneswar against cash memo. of OFDC Kalunga Saw Mill No. 926/92515 dated 6.3.1993 and 925/92454 dated 12.3.1993 for a total quantity of 13.419 cft. and 10.159 cft respectively. It is alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Annexure-1, the Petitioner had been interrogated by the Inspector of Vigilance in the month of January/February, 2007 and his statements were recorded with regard to the allegations made in the FIR. and 10.159 cft respectively. It is alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Annexure-1, the Petitioner had been interrogated by the Inspector of Vigilance in the month of January/February, 2007 and his statements were recorded with regard to the allegations made in the FIR. The Petitioner had clarified that as Director of the company (Mayfair Groups of Hotel) he had not purchased any timber in his personal capacity or authorized any person as Director to purchase the same or apply for any T.T. Permits and receive the same. The Petitioner has alleged that though the aforesaid prosecution has been launched against A.K. Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuanrmunda Forest Range, he has been entangled in that case with a motive to malign his reputation and harass him on account of political rivalry. The Petitioner was a Member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly having been elected from Rourkela Assembly Constituency and in March, 1990 he had been inducted into the State Cabinet as a Minister of State for Industry and he continued as such till March, 1995. In April, 1996 the Petitioner had been elected as a Member of the Rajya Sabha and on 28.6.1996 had been inducted into the Union Cabinet headed by Shri H.D. Devegowda, the then Prime Minister of India. It may be stated here that the Petitioner has also filed an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 771 of 2002 praying to quash the FIR dated 28.6.1996 filed against him by the Inspector of Vigilance, Cuttack, u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act as well as the Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 1996 registered by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack. While the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case No. 771 of 2002 was pending in this Court, the present FIR dated 23.5.2000 against A.K. Chatterjee was pursued and the Petitioner was interrogated. The Petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the FIR even if accepted at their face value do not disclose commission of any offence and/or make out a case against him under the P.C. Act. The Petitioner has stated that the allegations made in the FIR even if accepted at their face value do not disclose commission of any offence and/or make out a case against him under the P.C. Act. The documents basing upon which the investigation was conducted and the criminal proceeding initiated for the T.T. Permits prepared by A.K. Chatterjee, who is an accused, do not indicate anything that the timbers had ever been purchased or supplied to the Petitioner nor did the Petitioner ever apply for any transit permit under the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 ('T.T. Rules' in short) for transporting timber, as alleged in the FIR. The allegations made in the FIR were so absurd and inherently improbable that on that basis no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner. Since the FIR did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence nor did make out a case against the Petitioner under the P.C. Act, the Petitioner has prayed to quash the investigation made on the basis of the information alleged or received. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of the State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others and submitted that taking the last guideline indicated in the aforesaid decision into consideration, the FIR lodged, the case registered and the charge-sheet filed were attended with blatant and glaring mala fides and ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner due to the private and personal grudges of the powers that be. It would be worthwhile to quote hereunder the last guideline, i.e., guideline No. (7), as indicated in Bhajan Lal's case (supra): (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. 4. Against the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner, the prosecution advanced its arguments and also filed written notes of submission. The prosecution in the written notes of submission has admitted that the Petitioner had not been arrayed as an accused in the FIR but it only arrayed A.K. Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuarmunda, as an accused and a case had been registered only against said Chatterjee. The prosecution in the written notes of submission has admitted that the Petitioner had not been arrayed as an accused in the FIR but it only arrayed A.K. Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuarmunda, as an accused and a case had been registered only against said Chatterjee. Since the Petitioner is not an accused in the FIR, this application filed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. challenging the FIR is not maintainable. 5. Though the prosecution has taken the aforesaid stand, fact remains, during pendency of this application charge-sheet has been filed arraying the Petitioner as an accused. Therefore, the ground taken by the prosecution that this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. challenging the FIR is not maintainable since the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in the FIR absolutely does not hold good. As the charge-sheet was filed on 15.5.2007, the aforesaid point was not available to be urged in the written notes of submission filed, after the charge-sheet was filed, on 10.7.2007. Even though charge-sheet was submitted by then, this aspect was overlooked by the learned Counsel for the prosecution. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to the charge-sheet wherein it is stated thus: During investigation, a case u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), P.C. Act, 1988/120-B IPC and Section 21 of Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 has been well established against the accused persons, Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuarmunda Range, Sri Dillip Kumar Ray, Ex-Hon'ble Minister of State, Industries, Sri Bishi Keshan Dash and Sri Ramsaya Pandey. Since Sri Chatterjee has retired from Govt. service, no sanction of prosecution is required for his trial. Sri Bishi Keshan Dash and Sri Ramsey Pandey being private persons, no sanction is also required for their trial. His Excellency Governor of Orissa has been requested to accord sanction as required u/s 19(2) of P.C. Act-1988 for prosecution of Sri Dillip Ray, the Ex-Hon'ble Minister of State, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. However, awaiting sanction of prosecution against Sri Dillip Ray, the present Hon'ble M.P. Rajya Sabha, I submit C.S. No. 15 dt. 11.5.2007 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), P.C. Act, 1988/120-B IPC/21 Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 against all the accused persons noted above to stand their trial in the court of law. 7. However, awaiting sanction of prosecution against Sri Dillip Ray, the present Hon'ble M.P. Rajya Sabha, I submit C.S. No. 15 dt. 11.5.2007 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), P.C. Act, 1988/120-B IPC/21 Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 against all the accused persons noted above to stand their trial in the court of law. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further drew my attention to the statement of one A.C. Dinakar, IFS, D.F.O., Sundargarh, recorded during the investigation u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. wherein he has stated that A.K. Chatterjee was not authorized to issue the T.T. Permits and further that said Chatterjee had also not submitted or enclosed any application in Form No. II or bill or challan or cash memo. along with the duplicate copies of the T.T. Permits. Basing upon the aforesaid statements of Shri Dinakar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had never made any application for T.T. Permit and/or removal of forest produce and, therefore, he could never be held responsible for the same. He also drew my attention to Rules 4 and 7 of the T.T. Rules, which provide that a person desiring to remove forest produce under Rule 4 shall apply for transit permit to the Forest Officer having jurisdiction in Form II or Form III, as the case may be, together with a declaration and undertaking as required and only then his application would be entertained for consideration or refusal. According to the Petitioner, the statement of Shri Dinakar shows that no application was filed by the present Petitioner and if at all anything had been done by A.K. Chatterjee, by no stretch of imagination the Petitioner is not to blame for that. 8. The aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be brushed aside. Before going into the merit of the case, it is pertinent to mention here the order of this Court dated 26.2.2002, which is quoted below: No coercive action or precipitative action against the Petitioner shall be taken without the leave of this Court in regard to F.I.R. dated 23.5.2000/Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2000.... On 11.3.2002 this Court passed the following order: XXX XXX XXX Be that as it may, the order dated 26.2.2002 is very clear and unambiguous, and it leaves no scope for interpretation that there is stay of investigation. On 11.3.2002 this Court passed the following order: XXX XXX XXX Be that as it may, the order dated 26.2.2002 is very clear and unambiguous, and it leaves no scope for interpretation that there is stay of investigation. The Investigating Agency has only been directed not to take any coercive or precipitative action against the present Petitioner without the leave of this Court because if such an action is taken during the pendency of the application, the entire application will become infructuous. Therefore, no clarification of the order dated 26.2.2002 is at all required, XXX XXX XXX Thereafter, when the matter was listed, adjournments were sought mostly by the counsel for the Vigilance Department on the ground that sanction of competent authority was awaited. On 10.4.2007 this Court in Misc. Case No. 7/2002 while clarifying that sanction was not the issue in the present proceedings and the case could be heard on merit without awaiting sanction, fixed the case for final hearing on April 18, 2007. On April 18, 2007, on a joint request of the parties, the case was adjourned to May 16, 2007. On May 16, 2007 charge-sheet was filed during pendency of this case. 9. In paragraph-6 of this judgment, the relevant portion of the charge-sheet has already been quoted. It was indicated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the F.I.R. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the Petitioner was challenging Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 1996 before this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 771 of 2002, the F.I.R. against Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee, Forest Range Officer, Kuarmunda Range, was pursued which ultimately resulted in filling of the charge-sheet. The said Crl. Misc. Case has also been disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2008. In the present case, as contented by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, perusal of the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, indicate that there is no material to implicate the Petitioner, save and except the statement made in paragraph-4 charge-sheet that on 18.2.1992 Sri A.K. Chatterjee issued TT Permit in favour of Sri D.K. Ray, Director, M/s. Hotel Mayfair Beach Resort, Puri, authorizing transportation of 20.46 cft. Sal from Rourkela to Puri. Sal from Rourkela to Puri. Save and except saying that some TT Permits were issued in favour of Sri B.K. Das, C/o. D.K. Ray, Rourkela, and Sri D.K. Ray, Director, M/s. Hotel Mayfair Beach Resort, Puri, and Sri D.K. Ray, Director, M/s. Hotel Bishram Pvt. Ltd., there is nothing in the charge-sheet to show that any application was made by the Company or by D.K. Ray for issuance of TT Permit for transportation of the timbers, which is required under the T.T. Rules. Learned Counsel for the prosecution also emphasized on the fact that Sri A.K. Chatterjee, Range Officer Kuarmunda, during his incumbency as Forest Range Officer during the year 1990-94 had shown undue official favour to Sri D.K. Ray, the then Hon'ble Minister of State and his employees, Bisikesan Das and Ramsaya Pandey by abusing his official position in issuing TT Permits, allowing transport of excess quantity of timbers and sized logs over and above the quantity actually purchased by the Applicants. It is further indicated in the charge-sheet that Sri Dillip Kumar Ray, who was the then Minister of State, recommended the transfer of Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee from Balisankara K.L. Range to Kuarmunda Forest Range, This cannot be said to be material to connect the Petitioner as an accused. As an elected representative of the people, there was no bar for him to recommend the transfer or stop the transfer of any employee. In this case, as it appears, the Petitioner recommended the transfer of Sri Anil Kumar Chatterjee on the ground of illness of his wife, who was a cardiac patient. This cannot be a ground to make out a case against the Petitioner. Even after taking the Petitioner's case as in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet on its face value, if the allegations made are accepted and nothing is added thereto or subtracted therefrom, ho offence is made out against the Petitioner. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet but the same has not been challenged in this case and only the F.I.R. has been sought to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Atique Ahmed and Another Vs. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet but the same has not been challenged in this case and only the F.I.R. has been sought to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Atique Ahmed and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that a constitutional court can take into account the subsequent events in order to do complete justice between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigations. Basing upon the said decision, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed to quash the charge-sheet. 11. After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner for the offence under the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988/120B IPC and Section 21 of Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 will amount to miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of court. As the Petitioner has challenged only the F.I.R. and not the charge-sheet, I dispose of this Crl. Misc. Case with a direction that in the event sanction is received and the Petitioner files an application before the trial court at the time of framing of charge to discharge him, the said application shall be allowed by the trial court. Final Result : Allowed