ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash FIR No. 1 dated 03.01.2014 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in Police Station Kinnaur Himachal Pradesh. Brief facts of the case: 2. Complainant namely Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Ran Bahadur filed criminal complaint against petitioner/accused Suresh Chand alleging that petitioner/accused Suresh Chand called the complainant to his residence and asked him to pay Rs.3,50,000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) as gratification other than legal remuneration for felling a Kail tree. It is alleged that complainant told the accused that complainant is a poor person and he is unable to pay huge amount as gratification other than legal remuneration. It is further alleged that thereafter accused/petitioner Suresh Chand demanded Rs.1,50,000/- (One lac fifty thousand) as gratification other than legal remuneration and consequently complainant Anil Kumar paid Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) in cash to accused Suresh Chand as gratification other than legal remuneration. It is further alleged that after 5-6 days accused again contacted complainant Anil Kumar and demanded Rs.80,000/- (Eighty thousand) by way of cash as gratification other than legal remuneration. It is further alleged that accused had given his account No.11283810942 on piece of paper and asked the complainant to deposit remaining gratification amount other than legal remuneration. It is further alleged that complainant transferred Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) in account of accused. It is further alleged that accused has received an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand) as gratification other than legal remuneration and abused his official position. It is further alleged that accused demanded gratification other than legal remuneration because complainant had cut Kail tree for funeral ceremony of his brother. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners No.1 to 3 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.4 and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination: (1) Whether FIR No.1 dated 03.01.2014 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is liable to be quashed as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 5. 4. Following points arise for determination: (1) Whether FIR No.1 dated 03.01.2014 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is liable to be quashed as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that FIR No.1 dated 03.01.2014 is prima facie abuse of process of law because necessary sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 not obtained and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that previous sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is required at the stage of prosecution. It is held that previous sanction at the stage of registration of FIR and previous sanction at the stage of investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is not required. It is well settled law that prosecution starts when charge is framed against accused in accordance with law under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that false complaint filed against accused by the complainant and accused did not receive rupees ten thousand by way of cash and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue whether accused received rupees ten thousand or not as gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act is complicated issue of facts. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to adduce oral and documentaries evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that rupees twenty thousand were not transferred in the account of accused as gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue whether amount of rupees twenty thousand were transferred in the account of accused as gratification other than legal remuneration is issue of complicated facts. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to prove their case by way of adducing oral and documentaries evidence. 8. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to prove their case by way of adducing oral and documentaries evidence. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that accused did not finally demanded rupees one lac fifty thousand as gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue whether accused finally demanded rupees one lac fifty thousand as gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act is issue of complicated facts. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to prove their case by way of adducing oral and documentaries evidence. 9. It is well settled law that power of quashing FIR in criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly by Courts with circumspection. It is well settled law that normal process of criminal trial should not be cut short in casual manner. See 1995(2) SCC 449 title State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal. Also see AIR 1992 SC 1930 M/s Jayanti Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Chaitanaya Kumar and another. Also see 2012(10) SCC 303 title Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and Another. Also see 2015(8) SCC 307 title State of M.P. Vs. Manish & others. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings relating to innocence of accused or actus reus at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead oral and documentaries evidence in support of their case. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 10. In view of my findings on point No.1 above petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is dismissed. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of present petition. Cr.MMO No.267/2014 is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.