ORDER Singh, J. -- 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking relief of quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.5/2015 dated 4.1.2015 under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered by Special Police (Lokayukt), Bhopal against the petitioner. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, in nutshell are that during the relevant period the petitioner was posted as District Education Officer (for short the DEO), Panna. Complainant-Ravishankar Danayak was attached to the Office of DEO in capacity of Teacher. He had made application to the petitioner on three occasions for his posting but he was not posted anywhere. When he met the co-accused Khuman Prajapati, posted in Office of DEO, he was told to pay illegal gratification then only he would get the posting order. On this, complainant Ravishankar Danayak made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Sagar stating these allegations. On basis of complaint, a Digital Voice Recorder was given to the complainant for recording the conversation. After obtaining the recorded conversation a trap was set up and according to prosecution Rs.10,000/- was recovered from co-accused who had received the illegal gratification on behalf the petitioner. 3. At that time petitioner was also present in his office. The document pertaining to posting of the complainant was also seized. The complainant has made specific allegation against the petitioner. On the basis of written complaint given by complainant and completing the trap proceeding, FIR had been lodged by respondent. The investigation is in process. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that it is apparent from the FIR that petitioner had not directly demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant, the FIR against petitioner on the basis of false complaint is not only an abuse of process of law but riddled with malice and no prima facie offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. 5. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(AIR 1992 SC 629)], Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that in following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under section 482 CrPC may interfere in proceeding relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It was held as under :- “1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a noncognizable by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 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.” 6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that when petitioner legally refused to do wrong posting of the complainant, later had a grudge against the petitioner and made a false complaint against him. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that when petitioner legally refused to do wrong posting of the complainant, later had a grudge against the petitioner and made a false complaint against him. Even assuming that complainant has lodged the complaint only on account of his personal animosity that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. 7. Perusal of complaints given by complainant and said FIR reflects that a voice recorder was given to complainant and then complainant had a talk with petitioner on 31.12.2014 and during the conversation petitioner assured that he would issue the posting order after payment was received on his behalf by the co-accused Khuman Prajapati a clerk posted in office of DEO Panna. In this relation relevant portion which has been written in FIR is as follows :- ^^ekU;oj fuosnu gS fd eq>s fnukad 31-12-2014 dks vkids dk;kZy; ls ,d okbZl fjdkMZj egsUnz f}osnh] ftyk f'k{kk vfèkdkjh iUuk dh fj'or ek¡x okrkZ fjdkMZ djus gsrq fn;k x;k Fkk tks eSaus muls fnukad 31-12-2014 dks ckrphr dh tks mUgksaus nl gtkj #i;s ckcw [kqeku iztkifr dks nsus ds fy;s rFkk esjk dke djus ds fy;s rS;kj gks x, gaS----** 8. After giving careful consideration to the facts alleged and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the complainant has made clear and specific allegation against the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint, in our considered opinion do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and an investigation thereon and this case does not fall under anyone of the categories of the cases formulated in State of Haryana (supra), calling for the exercise of extra-ordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the FIR itself. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Manish Datt with Yash Soni for petitioner; Pankaj Dubey, Standing Counsel for Lokayukt.