JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.27/2004 lodged with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur/CPS ACB, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471 IPC against the petitioners. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR was registered at the Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur on 9.2.2004 against R.K.Chatur, the then Executive Engineer, Mahi Pariyojana, Banswara and others for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471 IPC. The allegation as per the FIR was that for the construction of the Mahi Pariyojana Main Canal, the excavation work was done in the year 1995-96. It was alleged in the FIR that the firms, which participated in the blasting and digging of the stones were made the payments without accounting for the 30% useful stones, which were extracted in the blasting process. It was also alleged that without any justification, the payment was made to the contractors at the full rate as prescribed in the BSR. It was further alleged that excess payment towards the transportation of the sludge taken out during the excavation of the canal was made to the firms. Likewise, it was also alleged that for the underwater digging also, cuttings were made in the measurement book and excess payment was made to the firms. The FIR also mentioned that in the remodelling work of the main canal, the width of the worm was proposed as 2.5 meters and the work was divided in 5 parts and was allotted to 5 contractors at high rates. It was further alleged that for the purpose of giving advantage to the contractors, the width of the worm was increased to 5 meters from 2.5 meters without any justification in order to give benefit to the contractors. It was further alleged that for the purpose of giving advantage to the contractors, the width of the worm was increased to 5 meters from 2.5 meters without any justification in order to give benefit to the contractors. The allegation in the FIR was that for the execution of the said works, R.K. Chatur (the then Ex.En.), G.S. Ashudani (the then Ex.En.) under the Chief Engineer Mahi Pariyojana, Banswara, M.P. Singh (the then Ex.En.), C.B. Singh (the then Ex.En.), P.C. Tamrakar (the then Ex.En.), Mahesh Mathur (the then A.En.), Suresh Upadhyay (the then A.En.), N.P. Trivedi (the then A.En.), Shashidhar Nayar (the then A.En.), misused their respective official positions and caused wrongful benefit to the contractors K.K. Gupta, M/s. Hema Construction Company, M/s. Bharati Construction Company, M/s. Wagad Construction Company and thereby caused wrongful gain to the contractors and corresponding loss to the Government. 3. These instant misc. petitions have been filed by Harish Patel (SBCRLMP No.71/2010), Pramod Kumar Pathak, Prakash Tamrkar, Chandra Bhushan Singh and M.P. Singh (SBCRLMP No.29/2010) and Suresh Sanghvi (SBCRLMP No.30/2010) seeking quashing of the FIR and the ongoing investigation in the matter as amounting to an abuse of the process of Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the work in question in relation whereto the F.I.R. No.27/04 has been lodged, was executed by the Irrigation Department from the year 1994 onwards under the Mahi Project. The person principally responsible for the execution of the work was Sh. R.K. Chatur the then Executive Engineer. The Anti Corruption Bureau after completion of investigation sought prosecution sanction for four other engineers, who were in service and the State Government has taken a decision that the officers committed no criminal misconduct in the execution of the work and as such, a decision has been arrived at not to accord the prosecution sanction for four engineers of the department viz. Ex.En. Sh. R.K. Chatur and A.Ens. Narendra Kumar Trivedi, Ramesh Chandra Mathur and Mahesh Chandra Mathur. Learned counsel submits that the whole of the case of the prosecution was based on the assumption that by executing the work in an irregular fashion, the petitioners and the other co-accused persons were responsible for causing a loss of Rs. 21,36,000/- to the Government. Sh. R.K. Chatur and A.Ens. Narendra Kumar Trivedi, Ramesh Chandra Mathur and Mahesh Chandra Mathur. Learned counsel submits that the whole of the case of the prosecution was based on the assumption that by executing the work in an irregular fashion, the petitioners and the other co-accused persons were responsible for causing a loss of Rs. 21,36,000/- to the Government. Pointing out the report dated 28.9.2010 submitted by the technical committee consisting of the senior officers of the Mahi Project, learned counsel submits that the committee has concluded that none of the officers, who were responsible for the execution of the project works were responsible for committing any misconduct in this case and as such, it has been opined that even departmental action is not warranted against any officer of the department in this case. Learned counsel submits that it is only the technical committee of the department, which is only competent to decide as to whether there has been any irregularity in the performance of the work so as to justify the drawing of the inference that loss was caused to the Government. He submits that as the competent committee has after due appreciation of the material available on record opined that no such irregularity was committed, therefore, exfacie the prosecution of the petitioners viz. Prakash Tamrkar (retired Executive Engineer), Chandra Bhushan Singh (retired Executive Engineer), M.P. Singh (retired Executive Engineer), Pramod Pathak (A.En. in service), Suresh Sanghvi and Harish Patel (contractors) is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He, therefore, prays that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the F.I.R. deserve to be quashed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer Shri Virendra Singh present in the Court, states that it is correct that the expert technical committee of the Government vide its report dated 28.9.2010 has opined in this case that no irregularity was committed in the execution of work by the officers concerned, but he submits that the liability has been fastened upon the contractors and recovery has been directed to be made from them. He fairly states that there is no contrary report available on the investigation file by which, it can be inferred that the work in question was not executed in the proper fashion or was executed contrary to the prescribed norms. He fairly states that there is no contrary report available on the investigation file by which, it can be inferred that the work in question was not executed in the proper fashion or was executed contrary to the prescribed norms. He however submits that so far as accused Pramod Kumar Pathak is concerned, there is a specific allegation supported by material on record that he forged certain documents and therefore, the proceedings against him are not liable to be interfered with.Upon a consideration of the material available on record and after going through the admitted documents available on record especially the explanatory letter/report of the Chief Engineer, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Pariyojana, Banswara dated 18.10.2003 as communicated to the Investigating Officer prior to registration of the FIR, it is apparent that the Chief Engineer in the said letter has clearly stated that no loss whatsoever was caused to the Government in the execution of disputed works. The relevant portion of the report of the Chief Engineer is quoted hereunder:- vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ( izk0tk0 ) Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjk t;iqj us i= la[;k Hkzfu@izktk@39@99@1614&18 fnukad 10-9-2003 ls mi egkfujh{kd iqfyl] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks mn;iqj dks izkFkfed tkap dh fjiksVZ dk ijh{k.k djs loZJh ( 1- Jh vkj0ds0prqj] v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk gky lsok fuo`Rr] 2- Jh0vkj0lh0 lDlSuk] v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk gky lsok fuo`Rr] 3- Jh th0lh0 vklqnkuh rRdkyhu vf/k{k.k vfHk;Urk] 4- Jh ,e0ih0 flag rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] 5- Jh pUnzHkw"k.k flag rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] 6- Jh ih0lh0 rkezdkj] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] 7- Jh egs'k ekFkqj] rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk, 8- Jh lqjs'k mik/;k; rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] 9- Jh ,u0ih0 f=osnh rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] 10- Jh 'kf'k/kju uk;j] rRdkyhu lgk;d vfHk;Urk] 11- rRdkyhu dfu"B vfHk;Urk] nkabZ eq[; ugj ekgh ifj;kstuk] ckalokM+k] 12- Jh ds0ds0 xqIrk eSllZ gsek daLV~D'ku dEiuh] dq'kyckx ckalokM+k 13- eSllZ Hkkjrh daLV~D'ku dEiuh] dq'kyckx ckalokM+k 14- eSllZ ckxM+ daLV~D'ku dEiuh] 8] eksgu dkWyksuh] ckalokM+k ds fo:) vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 13 ( 1 )( Mh )( 2 ) ihlh 1@1988 lgifBr /kkjk 120 ch] 420] 467] 471 Hkkx n l esa vfHk;ksx iathc) djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA vkjksfir ds fo:) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ rS;kj dj Hkstus vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gS rFkk bldh izfr bl dk;kZy; dks Hksth xbZA " vkWfMV fjiksVZ dk fcUnq la[;k 2 (III) [kqnkbZ ds nkSjku izkIr cM+s iRFkjksa dks Bsdsnkj }kjk ugha rksM+us ij Hkh czsfdax vkWQ yktZ LVksu dk Hkqxrku dj jkf'k :0 21-36 yk[k dk Hkqxrku djus ls lEcfU/kr FkkA foHkkx }kjk mDr vuqPNsn ij ikyuk Hksth xbZ ysfdu ;g vuqPNsn lh0,0th0 dh fjiksVZ esa lfEefyr fd;k x;k rfkk tu ys[kk lfefr ds le{k izLrqr gqvk ,oa tu ys[kk lfefr us o"kZ 2002&2003 ds 188 os izfrosnu esa nh xbZ flQkfj'k la[;k 7 fnukad 3-3-2003 ls ;g vknsf'k{k fd;k x;k gS fd Bsdsnkjksa ls :0 21-36 yk[k dh olwyh dh tk;sA fuekZ.k dk;Z vuqcU/k dh 'krksZa ds vuq:i gqvk gS rFkk tu ys[kk lfefr us Bsdsnkjksa ls olwyh ds fy, Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k gS ,oa fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dks nks"kh ugha crk;k x;k gSA olwyh ;ksX; jkf'k :0 21-36 yk[k esa ls 1-77 yk[k dh olwyh foHkkx }kjk Bsdsnkjksa ls dj yh xbZ gS ,oa jkT; dks"k esa tek Hkh djk nh xbZ gSA ek= nks vuqcfU/kr dk;Z esa laosnd }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj us olwyh ds LFkxu dk okn nk;j fd;k gS tks vHkh LFkxu mijkUr U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA bl izdkj mijksDr fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd egkys[kkdkj ds vad{ks.k ny }kjk foHkkx ds ys[kksa dk vads{k.k dj ys[kksa ij vkifRr;ka ntZ djuk ,d lkekU; izfdz;k gS ,oa vk{ksiksa dh ikyuk ys[kk fu;eksa ds v/khu foHkkx }kjk dh tkdj vk{ksiksa dks fujLr djkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkrh gSA bl izfdz;k esa fdlh vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh dk lkekU; :i ls mRrjnkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr ugha gksrkA fo'ks"k izdj.k esa Hkh vads{k.k }kjk vk{ksfir fcUnqvksa esa fdlh vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh us jktdh; /ku dh gkfu igqapkus tSlk ekeyk ugha n'kkZ;k gS ,oa u gh tu ys[kk lfefr }kjk ,slh dksbZ flQkfj'k dh xbZ gSA " 6. Thus the conclusion of the report is that there was no prima-facie case of defalcation of the Government funds and causing loss to the Government by any action of the concerned persons including the petitioners. 7. The initiation of proceedings in this case was based on the report of the Controller and Auditor General of Rajasthan. During the course of the pre-FIR inquiry, the Inquiry Officer requested the Chief Auditor General to give latest information about the audit objections and the information, which was communicated by the Auditor General to the Investigating Officer by a letter dated 28.9.1999 was to the effect that except for one partial office objection, the other objections were dropped. Copy of the letter of the Inquiry Officer dated 7.12.1999 addressed to the Executive Engineer has been annexed to the petition and as per the said letter, the dropping of the charges by the Chief Auditor General is admitted. The relevant portion of the letter dated 7.12.1999 is quoted hereunder:- " fo"k; %& izkFkfed tkap la[;k 33@1999 fo:) vf/kdkjhx.k nkfg eq[; ugj] ekgh ifj;kstuk ckalokM+kA izlax %& vkidk i= dzekad 1789 fnukad 28-9-1999 ds dze esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd mDr izklafxd i= ds }kjk r[kehuksa dh Nk;k izfr;ka izsf"kr dh xbZ FkhA Jheku~ us mDr izklafxd i= esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k fd orZeku esa egkys[kkdkj jktLFkku t;iqj }kjk mDr tkap esa lEcfU/kr tks vk{ksi cuk;s Fks muesa ls ,d vkaf'kd vk{ksi dks NksM+ dj ckdh fujLr fd;s tk pqds gSaA egkys[kkdkj jktLFkku t;iqj ds }kjk tks vk{ksi fujLr fd;s x;s gSaA ;g vkids }kjk tks vk{ksiksa ij fujkdj.k dj fVIi.kh egkys[kkdkj t;iqj dks Hksts x;s rFkk mu ij egkys[kkdkj ds }kjk vk{ksiksa dks fujLr fd;s x;s gSa] mDr nksuksa dh izekf.kr Nk;k izfr;ka i= okgd ds lkFk fHktokus dk Je djkosaA rFkk lEcfU/kr fyfid@ys[kkdkj dks Hkh bl dk;kZy; esa fHktokus dk Je djkosaA " 8. It is also relevant to mention here that the public servants in the petitions before this Court have been superannuated except the petitioner Pramod Pathak. The petitioner Harish patel and Suresh Sanghvi are the contractors. The principal accused in the case was R.K. Chatur the Executive Engineer and the State Government upon consideration of the material available on record has refused to accord sanction for prosecuting him. The petitioner Harish patel and Suresh Sanghvi are the contractors. The principal accused in the case was R.K. Chatur the Executive Engineer and the State Government upon consideration of the material available on record has refused to accord sanction for prosecuting him. The refusal to accord sanction was silent about two points namely undue expenses on underwater digging and excess payment towards transportation (lead) and therefore, the Investigating Officer by letter dated 18/19.12.2008 wrote to the State Government that clarification be given in relation to these points because the same were not referred to in the sanction refusal letter. The relevant portion of the letter of the Investigating Officer is quoted hereunder: " mijksDr fo"k;karxZr fuosnu gS fd vki }kjk lanfHkZr i= ds ek/;e ls izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohsd`fr iznku ugha djus ds fu.kZ; ls C;wjksa dks voxr djk;k x;k gSA lanfHkZr i= ds voyksdu ls Kkr gqvk gS fd blesa fuEufyf[kr vkjksiksa ij jkT; ljdkj ds er ds fo"k; esa dqN Hkh vafdr ugha fd;k x;k gS% 1- ikuh ds uhps [kqnkbz ij mi&O;A 2- ifjogu (lead) gsrq vfrfjDr HkqxrkuA vr% funsZ'kkuqlkj fuosnu gS fd izdj.k esa mijksDr nksuksa fcUnqvksa ds lecU/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds er ls vfr'kh?kz voxr djk,a rkfd izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k laHko gks ldsA " 9. The State Government by letter dated 15.1.2009 intimated the Investigating Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur that the several aspects referred to in the letter dated 19.12.2008 had already been examined by the State Government and the decision of the State Government was also intimated to the Bureau by letter dated 19.9.2008. Thus it is manifest that the final unrebuted stand of the Department as per communications sent to the Investigating Officer is that no irregularity was committed by any of the concerned officers in the execution of the disputed work. 10. Next comes the issue of the recovery of the amount of which loss has allegedly been caused to the State Government by the contractors. In this regard also, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Jaipur by letter dated 1.4.2011 intimated to the Investigating Officer, Anti Corruption Bureau that the Auditor General had by its communication directed recovery of Rs. 21.36 lacs, whereas nobody was responsible for any loss in this case. Despite that a recovery of Rs. 13.73 lacs was made from the contractors but the remaining amount was stayed by the Court. 21.36 lacs, whereas nobody was responsible for any loss in this case. Despite that a recovery of Rs. 13.73 lacs was made from the contractors but the remaining amount was stayed by the Court. The Chief Engineer also communicated that the State had taken a decision not to take any departmental action against the concerned officers/employees. The relevant portion of the letter dated 1.4.2011 is also quoted hereunder: " izlaxkfdr i= dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr dj vuqjks/k gS fd izdj.k egkys[kkdkj vads{k.k izfrosnu 1999-2000 ds iSjk la[;k 2 (III) ij tuys[kk lfefr }kjk o"kZ 2002-2003 dk 188 oka izfronsu tkjh djrs gq, jkf'k :0 21-36 yk[k dh olwyh laosndksa ls djus dh flQkfj'k dh xbZ] tcfd izdj.k esa fdlh dks Hkh nks"kh ugha ekuk gSaA izdj.k esa foHkkx }kjk t0ys0l0 dh flQkfj'k dh vuqikyuk esa 13-73 yk[k dh olwyh laosndksa ls dj yh xbZ] ysfdu 'ks"k jkf'k dh olwyh laosndksa }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls LFkxu izkIr dj ysus ds dkj.k ugha gks ldh gSA vr% izdj.k esa t0ys0l0 dh flQkfj'k dh iw.kZ ikyuk ugha dh tk ldhA izdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; vfHk;Urk] ty lalk/ku laHkkx mn;iqj us vius i= dzekad 4049 fnukad 27-2-2011 }kjk voxr djk;k gS fd lacaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh izLrkfor fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA " 11. The said decision was taken after an Expert Panel of three senior officers of the Project gave an opinion in their inquiry report as below:- " egkys[kkdkj dh vkWfMV ikVhZ }kjk tuojh 96 ls ebZ 1998 ds e/; gq, Hkqxrku dh i=koyh@jfuax fcy bR;kfn dh leh{kk@takp djus ij v{ksi yxk;s x;s Fks] tks fd jkT; esa fuekZ.k dk;ksZa ls lacaf/kr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr lkekU; izfdz;k dk ,d fgLlk gS fuekZ.k dk;Z ds Hkqxrku ij vkfMV gksuk 'kkldh; dk;Z iz.kkyh dk ,d lkekU; fgLlk gSA bl izfdz;k ds vUrxZr mBk;s x;s vk{ksiksa dk eq[; vk/kkj lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa o l{ke Lohd`fr;ksa ds fujh{k.k dk vHkko rF;ksa ds lR;kiu dk vHkko dk;Z LFky dh fLFkfr dk ifjyf{kr ugha gksuk rdfudh n`f"Vdks.k@Li"Vdj.k dks vHkko bR;kfn eq[;r% gksrs gSa] D;ksafd vkWfMV ikVhZ ,d lhfer le; ds fy;s Hksth tkrh gS] tks de gksrk gSA ml le; dbZ vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ds nksjs ;k NqV~Vh ij gksuk ;k i=kofy;ksa dk U;kf;d izdj.kksa esa O;Lr gksus bR;kfn dkj.kksa ls bl vi;kZIr le; lhek esa dbZ vfHkys[k@rF;ksa dk izek.khdj.k@Li"Vhdj.k le; ij ifjyf{kr ugha gks ikrs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa foHkkx o egkys[kkdkj ds e/; fofHkUu Lrjksa ij i=ksa ds ek/;e ls lwpuk@mRrj@Li"Vhdj.k vkfn dk vknku&iznku fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vko';drk eglwl gksus ij egkys[kkdkj ds vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Z LFky dk fujh{k.k Hkh fd;k tkrk gS] o dkykarj esa iqu% vkWfMV@fujh{k.k ds le; lqalxr i=koyh vfHkys[k Li"Vhdj.k@mRrj vkfn dh tkap dj Hkqxrku dks fu;eksa ds vuqlkj@vUrxZr ikus ij vkWfMV ikVhZ@egkys[kkdkj ,sls vk{ksiksa dks fujLr Hkh dj nsrs gSaA tc vads{k.k] dk;Z dh izxfr] ds nkSjku gksrk gS o ;fn fdlh Hkqxrku esa vfu;ferrk ikbZ tkrh gS rks mldk lek/kku lafonk@vuqca/k ds vafre :i ls fuLrkj.k djus ls iwoZ djus dk izko/kku gS tks dj fy;k tkrk gSaA bl izdj.k esa vads{k.k] dk;Z dh izxfr ds nkSjku gqvk gSA mijksDr leLr dk;Zokgh fu;eksa ds izko/kku ds vUrxZr ,d lkekU;@oS/k dk;Zokgh gSa ftldk ikyu bl izdj.k esa Hkh fd;k x;k gS] vkSj mlh izfdz;k ds vUrxZr egkys[kkdkj us leLr lR;kiu izek.khdj.k o dk;Z LFky ds fujh{k.k ds i'pkr~ fuekZ.k dk;ksZa ij gq;s Hkqxrku dks vuqcU/kksa ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj o fu;eksa ds vUrxZr oS/k ik;s tkus dh larqf"V ds i'pkr~ gh lHkh vk{ksiksa dks muds Lrj ls dkykarj@orZeku esa fujLr dj vkfMV izdj.k lekIr dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% desVh bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaph gS fd bl izdj.k dksbZ Hkh deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh nks"kh ugha gSA rFkk buds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSaA " 12. Thus, it is further apparent that the expert panel of the State Government itself in this case has arrived at a finding and taken a decision that no loss was caused to the Government and that the officers were not even liable to be prosecuted departmentally. As has been stated above, no contrary report is available on the investigation file. In view of the aforesaid conclusive findings of the State Government in relation to the departmental action, now the question, which this Court has to consider in these petitions filed for quashing of the proceedings is as to whether there remains any justification for permitting the prosecution of the respective petitioners to be continued in this case. In the case at hand, the State Government after detailed and repeated inquiries, has come to a conclusion that none of the officers concerned with the project in question committed any irregularity in the execution of the works. The State Government has even refused to grant sanction to prosecute the principal accused named in the FIR i.e. Executive Engineer - R.K. Chatur and the other engineers who were in service. The decision of the State Government not to initiate departmental proceedings against the respective accused and not to accord sanction for prosecuting Sh. R.K. Chatur Ex.En., Narendra Kumar Trivedi, Ramesh Chandra Mathur and Mahesh Chandra Mathur have become final. The petitioners herein are faced with the situation that the petitioner Harish Patel and Suresh Sanghvi are the works contractors for whose prosecution, no sanction is required. The petitioner Pramod Pathak is a J.En. and not removable by the State Government and the sanction to prosecute him was granted by his departmental superior. Whilst the petitioners Chandra Bhushan Singh, M.P. Singh and Prakash Tamrkar have all since superannuated and therefore, no sanction is required for their prosecution. Had it been the case that these petitioners were still in service, their prosecution would not have been permitted simply for the reason that the State Government on parity would have refused to accord sanction to prosecute them because the decision has already been taken by the employer i.e. the State Government not to accord the prosecution sanction for the other engineers of the department viz. R.K.Chatur (the then Ex.En.), Narendra Kumar Trivedi (the then A.En.), Ramesh Chandra Mathur (the then J.En.) and Mahesh Chandra Mathur (A.En.). R.K.Chatur (the then Ex.En.), Narendra Kumar Trivedi (the then A.En.), Ramesh Chandra Mathur (the then J.En.) and Mahesh Chandra Mathur (A.En.). The Investigating Officer in his report submitted to this Court has not stated that there is any difference in the prosecution case as regards these accused and the case as against the petitioners. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the prosecution of the petitioners in this case while the other similarly situated accused for valid reasons are not being prosecuted as the employer i.e. the State Government has refused sanction to prosecute them with the positive opinion that no irregularity was committed in the disputed work, is nothing short of a gross and grave abuse of process of Court. 14. So far as the contention of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner Pramod Pathak forged certain documents i.e. measurement books, therefore, his prosecution should be permitted, the same also need not hold this Court for a moment the reason that firstly the so-called forgery has not resulted into any loss to the Government as has already been discussed above and secondly the alleged forgery is nothing but entry made by the officer himself in the measurement book. Obviously there is no interpolation or other such act of the officer in the measurement book, which can bring his act to be within the definition of preparing false documents as defined in Sections 463 and 464 IPC. 15. Resultantly, the misc. petitions deserve to be accepted and are hereby allowed and the FIR No.27/2004 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Udaipur/CPS ACB, Jaipur as well as all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed.Stay petitions are also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******