JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 285/2011 registered at P.S. Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore CPS, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)D, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120-B, I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a first information report was submitted by the two persons viz., Sawailal and Suresh Kumar both residents of Ward No. 12, Maheshwari Colony, Bhinmal before the Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore on 21.7.2011 with the allegation that Shanker Lal, Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Bhinmal is threatening them with demolition of both their houses on the ground that they are encroachments and unless the illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/- was paid-by the complainants, Shankerlal was persisting with his threat to demolish their house. Both the complainant submitted to the Dy. S.P. that they were not desirous of giving the illegal gratification and thus they are filing the report. On the basis of the report, verification proceedings were arranged. It is further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of verification proceedings, the demand of bribe was verified in the voice recorded carried out in presence of constable Teja Ram of the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was arranged on 22.7.2011 after summoning two independent witnesses. The verification recording was replayed in the presence of the witnesses and it was found that the accused Shanker Lal had instructed the decoy to pass on the bribe money to Surender Singh Driver. The two complainants presented the currency notes worth Rs. 60,000/- each to the 1.0. as being bribe money to e paid to Surender Singh, Driver. After the necessary formalities, the trap party started for its destination and reached Bhinmal. Enquiry about whereabouts of Surender Singh was done and on which it was learnt that he was sitting in the garden of the Municipality Bhinmal. The micro tape recorder was started and the decoy alongwith the two witnesses were sent to meet the driver Surender Singh and pass on the currency notes. A little later the two decoy came back and informed the Dy. S.P. That the driver Surender Singh had refused to accept the bribe money. On this, the Dy. The micro tape recorder was started and the decoy alongwith the two witnesses were sent to meet the driver Surender Singh and pass on the currency notes. A little later the two decoy came back and informed the Dy. S.P. That the driver Surender Singh had refused to accept the bribe money. On this, the Dy. S.P. (Trap Laying Officer) instructed the decoy to talk to Shanker Lal and try to pass on the tainted money to him. The proceedings further revealed that Shankerlal refused to make any conversation with the decoy citing night time as a reason. The trap was accordingly postponed to 23.7.2011. On 23.7.2011 again the trap proceedings were arranged and the decoys were sent to the house of Shanker Lal, E.O. On reaching the house, the decoys came back to the T.L.O. And informed him that Shanker Lal was not available and had instructed Surender Singh to receive the bribe. Surender Singh met the decoy and told that he will not accept the money directly and also instructed them to pass on the tainted currency notes to one Prabhu Ram, a driver on contract with the Municipality, Bhinmal. On this trap party reached the rental house of Prabhu Ram at Nimbali Bera, Bhinmal and constable Sohan Ram was sent alongwith two decoys with instructions to witness. A little later as per instruction Sohan Ram gave the pre-arranged signal by. making a call to the T.L.O. upon passing on the bribe upon which the T.L.O. reached at the house of Prabhu Ram at Nimbali Bera alongwith members of the trap party and it was found that Sawai Singh and two others were sitting on a cot in the open chowk of Prabhu Ram's house. The tape recorder was taken by the Dy. S.P. from Sawailal. On enquiry Sawai Lal told that tainted currency notes worth Rs. 60,000/- were given to Prabhu Ram a driver on contract basis with the Municipality as per the instructions given by Surender Singh and Prabhu Ram had given the tainted currency notes to Khangara Ram for counting. On seeing the vehicle of Bureau, Khangara Ram thrown down the bundle of currency notes on the cot after counting them. On enquiry made from Prabhu Ram, he informed that Surender Singh had called him all little earlier and told him that Shanker Lal had instructed Sawai Lal to give Rs. On seeing the vehicle of Bureau, Khangara Ram thrown down the bundle of currency notes on the cot after counting them. On enquiry made from Prabhu Ram, he informed that Surender Singh had called him all little earlier and told him that Shanker Lal had instructed Sawai Lal to give Rs. 60,000/- which should be taken by Prabhu Ram. He further told Prabhu Ram that when Executive Officer comes back, he will be relieved of the money. Prabhu Ram further informed the T.L.O. that he had taken the money from Sawai Lal and had give the same to Khangara Ram for counting. Khangara Ram counted the money and on seeing the vehicle of the trap party laid the money on the cot lying in the Chowk. Khangara Ram upon enquiry told the T.L.O. that he was working as labourer on the well of Prabhu Ram. Sawai Lal had come to meet Prabhu Ram little while back and were having talks regarding which Khangara Ram was unaware and Prabhu Ram called him and gave him a bundle of notes of denomination off Rs. 1,000/-. He counted the notes on the instructions of Prabhu Ram and counted them to be Rs. 60,000/- and on seeing the trap party he laid the notes on the cot. Suresh Kumar, the second decoy also corroborated these facts. Prabhu Ram was instructed to put a call to Surender Singh in relation 'to these transactions but he refused. It is stated that wash of the hands of Prabhu Ram and Khangara Ram were taken and the same turned pink. The tainted notes were seized and ultimately the officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau apprehended Surender Singh, Prabhu Ram and Khangara Ram. When Surendra Singh and Prabhu Ram were confronted about bribe money, they requested to be excused for their mistake. Shanker Lal allegedly took the shield of suffering from cardiac problem and managed to escape from the clutches of Anti Corruption Official on the ground of going to Ahmedabad. The officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau ultimately arrested the petitioner, Surender Singh and Prabhu Ram for the aforesaid offences and registered the F.I.R. as stated above. 3. Khangara Ram has now approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. the contents whereof have been reproduced above. 4. The officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau ultimately arrested the petitioner, Surender Singh and Prabhu Ram for the aforesaid offences and registered the F.I.R. as stated above. 3. Khangara Ram has now approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. the contents whereof have been reproduced above. 4. Shri Dhanesh Saraswat, counsel for the petitioner submits that from the admitted facts of the prosecution case, the petitioner Khangara Ram was in no manner connected or concerned with the tainted currency notes. He submitted that it is not the case of the complainant or the prosecution that Khangara Ram had any sort of contact or prior conspiracy with Surender Singh, the driver of Shanker Lal or with Shanker Lal himself. He submitted that there is no possibility from the admitted facts available on record regarding Khangara Ram being involved in the conspiracy of committing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless and until the prosecution is able to show any material to the effect that there was a prior meeting of minds between the petitioner and Surender Singh or that the petitioner had any semblance of knowledge that Prabhu Ram was accepting the money knowing it to be as being illegal gratification, the involvement of the petitioner in this case is absolutely unfounded. He submits that the highest case of the prosecution as per the version disclosed by the decoy to the I.0. is that he gave the notes to Prabhu Ram and Prabhu Ram in turn casually passed on the notes to Khangara Ram, the petitioner for counting. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner should have actually been made a witness in this case rather than being made an accused. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor had been directed to call the 1.0. and keep him before this Court. Accordingly, the I.Q. Mr. Jainarain Meena appeared before this Court and stated that since the petitioner had counted the notes in question, he was also responsible for the conspiracy to commit an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submitted that the petitioner had also talked to Surender Singh before accepting notes, therefore, he was also responsible for accepting the bribe money as a conspirator. He further submitted that the petitioner had also talked to Surender Singh before accepting notes, therefore, he was also responsible for accepting the bribe money as a conspirator. On enquiry as regards the existence of any call details regarding the petitioner having talked with Prabhu Ram, the I.O. failed to place on record any such details and stated that there was no evidence on record about the petitioner having prior conversation with Prabhu Ram in relation to the bribe. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and contends that the inherent powers of the High Court for. quashing the F.I.R. particularly F.I.R. under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the initial stage should be rarely and sparingly used. 7. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the record of the case particularly the seizure memo and the description of the transaction of passed on of the currency notes conducted during trap proceedings, it is apparent that up till the date of laying down of the trap, there is absolutely no allegation or material on record by which is can be inferred that the petitioner had even a semblance of knowledge that the money which he was counting was as a matter of fact being passed on by Sawai Lal as illegal gratification. The petitioner was coincidently present in the house of Prabhu Ram because he was working as a labourer, therefore, he could not be expected to have any knowledge that any transaction of receiving bribe was to take place in the house. Prabhu Ram also just incidentally handed over the currency notes to the petitioner for counting and the petitioner counted the same and placed the same on the cot. The submission of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner had some conversation with Surender Singh who instructed him to go to house on Prabhu Ram for accepting the bribe is not substantiated from the record. Had there been any material to this effect, the same would have been taken on record by way of call details etc. The submission of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner had some conversation with Surender Singh who instructed him to go to house on Prabhu Ram for accepting the bribe is not substantiated from the record. Had there been any material to this effect, the same would have been taken on record by way of call details etc. Admittedly, no such material has been taken/brought on record by the I.O. Thus, from the admitted and highest allegations of the prosecution in this case, there is no such material by which a conclusion can be arrived at that the petitioner was a conspirator with the other accused for accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Neither there is any such material nor the facts available. on the case diary justify the involvement of the petitioner as conspirator with the other accused. The petitioner as is admitted on record is a casual labour and was just incidentally available on the field house of Prabhu Ram for doing the labour job and Prabhu Ram casually passed on the notes to him for counting, and therefore, the petitioner could not have any semblance of knowledge about the currency notes being tainted currency intended to be passed on as bribe. The petitioner Khangara Ram should rather have been kept as witness instead of making him an accused. Be that as it may, any further continuance of the investigation in this case against the petitioner cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The proceedings and further investigation of the F.I.R. No. 285/2011 Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore to the extent an qua the petitioner amount to abuse of process and as such the same are her quashed to the extent and qua the petitioner. However, the investigations 1 continue as regards the order accused.Petition allowed. *******