ORDER 1. By this miscellaneous criminal case under section 482 of the CrPC, petitioner Vidyut Mittal has prayed for quashment First Information Report registered at Crime No.42/2015 for offence under sections 420, 120B of the IPC and under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that although the petitioner has prayed for quashment of First Information Report registered at Crime No.42/2015 for offence under sections 420, 120B of the IPC and under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents/competent authority is directed to examine the issue regarding the development charges being imposed on the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Developer Company has duly obtained the colonizer license, diversion orders, development permission, sanctioned lay out from the competent authorities. Counsel further submitted that Developer Company has completed the work of the subject colony. Counsel further submitted that the M.P. Gram Panchayat (Registration of Colonizer Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999 which are applicable to the case of the petitioner provides for deposit of supervision charges @ 2% on the estimated cost to be incurred on the internal development by colony as also mortgage of 25% of developed plots with the competent authority to be released from mortgage on the completion of internal development work of the colony. It has been alleged that the petitioner has deliberately failed to pay the development charges, as per Rule 12 of the Rules 1999 of M.P. Gram Panchayat (Registration of Colonizer Terms and Conditions). Counsel submitted that the competent authority/S.D.O. Sanwer by letter No.463/S.D.C./11-12 dated 17.10.2012 estimated the cost and the cost of estimated cost for the internal development of the colony is Rs.9,52,70,118/- and the petitioner had already deposited the estimated amount of Rs.18,00,000/- on 1.11.2012. However, a complaint was filed by the Lokayukt at No.96/2010 in this regard that this amount is directed to be incurred as Rs.8.93 crores. 4. Second allegation levelled against the petitioner is that there was a deficit stamp duty and counsel also submitted that false allegation has been made in this regard. Counsel submitted that all the evidence are available on record along the petition and the same has not been considered by the respondents. 4. Second allegation levelled against the petitioner is that there was a deficit stamp duty and counsel also submitted that false allegation has been made in this regard. Counsel submitted that all the evidence are available on record along the petition and the same has not been considered by the respondents. Moreover, counsel submitted that it was vital to the defence of the petitioner to place the information before the competent authority regarding the imposition of such stamp duty, which was not called for. Counsel submitted that appropriate development charges as well as stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner. And hence, counsel prayed that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner since the matter is under active investigation before the competent authority. 5. Counsel further submitted that the third accusation pertains to issuance of completion certificate despite there being some deficiencies in the development work. The said accusation is baseless and contrary to the definition of internal development as defined in the relevant rules namely Registration of Colonizers terms and Conditions Rule, 1999. Besides Counsel submitted that charges have yet to be framed against the petitioner. He also submitted that the FIR registered at Crime No.42/2015 against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction and there is no case is made out. Hence, counsel prayed that in interest of justice one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to put forth his case. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been considered. However, he was unable to say how the rate One hundred rupees per sq.ft. for the development charge imposed as per Annexure P-1 and in the FIR. He prays for time to file reply. 7. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents/competent authority. 8. In this view of the matter, without commenting on the merits of the case, it is directed that if the petitioner files a detailed representation along with a copy of this order to the satisfaction of the respondents/competent authority; then the Investigating Agency shall reconsider the matter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of three months from today before proceeding with the impugned FIR. 9. 9. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this petition is disposed of to the extent herein above indicated.