ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. By the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for quashing FIR No.342/2015, registered at Central Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, qua him, for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'). The petitioner has also craved for restraining the investigating agency from conducting further investigation into the impugned FIR and not to take coercive action against him. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner, while working in Agricultural Marketing Board as Accounts Officer Grade-II in the substantive capacity was entrusted additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer Grade-I on account of administrative exigencies. An order to this effect was passed on 7th of October, 2014 and pursuant thereto, petitioner assumed charge on 14th of October, 2014. Although, the petitioner was having additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer Grade-I, but then this position itself did not invested him with any power to condone delay in execution of work by a contractor so as to absolve him from penalty, and power to this effect continued to remain with Superintending Engineer, Agricultural Marketing Board, Sri Ganganagar. It so happened that fourth respondent complainant got a letter issued from the office of Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board, Anoopgarh and when the same was placed before petitioner, it was marked to the concerned clerk. By the aforesaid letter dated 6th of October, 2015, the Executive Engineer recommended for extension of time to the fourth respondent, who is proprietor of M/s. Kamal & Co., contractor. In due course of time, the letter of Executive Engineer was examined by the Superintending Engineer and extension was granted to the fourth respondent-complainant. During the extended period, work was completed and final payment was also released to the fourth respondent-contractor. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that for extension of time in completion of work by the complainant he was neither involved at any stage nor he was competent to grant extension and as such the attempt made by fourth respondent to entangle him in the entire episode is wholly unfounded. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that for extension of time in completion of work by the complainant he was neither involved at any stage nor he was competent to grant extension and as such the attempt made by fourth respondent to entangle him in the entire episode is wholly unfounded. It is also averred in the petition by the petitioner that though complainant was not at all keen to implicate him in commission of any offence, but he was instigated by certain vested interests to involve him and that led to filing of a complaint with the A.C.B., inter-alia, alleging therein that petitioner has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for getting the work done. 3. It appears that some alleged conversation between petitioner and fourth respondent was recorded and on that basis a case is registered against him for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. As per version of the petitioner, the FIR nowhere discloses any demand made by him nor any amount was paid to him. Furthermore, as per petitioner, no work of complainant was pending with him, and therefore, it was a clear case of his false implication in the matter. After registration of the case, petitioner made sincere endeavour to apprise Inspector General of Police, A.C.B., Rajasthan to furnish certain information under the Right to Information Act but no information was divulged to him. Be that as it may, some of the subsequent events, having direct ramification on the subject matter, are also pleaded by petitioner for the reliefs craved for in the petition. 4. As a matter of fact, the complainant submitted a letter to Inspector General of Police, A.C.B., Rajasthan, with his affidavit withdrawing all the pejoratives he has hurled against the petitioner. In his affidavit, complainant clarified that he did not talk to petitioner in connection with extension of time for completion of his work and the so called recorded tape is with some other incumbent, therefore, he is not interested to continue proceedings against the petitioner. Despite clear recitals in the affidavit absolving the petitioner from commission of any offence, investigation in the matter continued. Subsequent to that, complainant sent some other communications to A.C.B. not to proceed against the petitioner. Despite clear recitals in the affidavit absolving the petitioner from commission of any offence, investigation in the matter continued. Subsequent to that, complainant sent some other communications to A.C.B. not to proceed against the petitioner. It is in that background, the petitioner has pleaded that prima facie no criminal delinquency for the offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 is made out against him and as such further proceedings in the matter would be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 5. At the threshold, when the matter came up before the Court, the Court was pleased to issue notice and grant interim protection to the petitioner on 3rd of April, 2017. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, submits that a bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that the same does not disclose commission of any offence much less offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. Learned Senior Counsel has urged that petitioner was holding additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer, Grade-I and admittedly no work of the complainant was pending with him is a fact of great significance which is completely over-looked by the investigating agency while registering FIR against him. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that soon after making a complaint, complainant retracted from his earlier version by tendering his affidavit to absolve the petitioner of the alleged offence, is a fact of great significance, exposing per se serious loop-holes of the entire prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that when demand of illegal gratification itself is missing and admittedly no proof about acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner is there, no offence is made out against him to proceed in the matter. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has urged that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when petitioner's involvement in commission of offence is completely ruled-out by the complainant himself, further proceedings or investigation in the matter would obviously result in abuse of the process of the Court and his unnecessary harassment. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the fact, that complainant has withdrawn the complaint against petitioner by tendering an affidavit, would contend that demand of illegal gratification itself is sufficient to constitute offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the fact, that complainant has withdrawn the complaint against petitioner by tendering an affidavit, would contend that demand of illegal gratification itself is sufficient to constitute offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that investigation in the matter is completed and sanction for prosecution is also granted, therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted case diary for perusal of the Court. 8. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the documents placed on record by petitioner and also thoroughly scanned the entire case diary. 9. While, it is true that offence of bribery and corruption amongst public servants is a matter of grave concern and such offences are to be dealt with effectively to prevent or curb such menace. The whole object of the Act of 1988 is to provide effective machinery to combat corruption among public servants. There remains no quarrel that demanding illegal gratification by a public servant amounts to an offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988, but, then the best possible evidence to prove the charge of demand is the complainant, and therefore, testimony of complainant is pre-requisite to bring home guilt for the aforesaid offence. In a case under anti-corruption law, a decoy/complainant is though treated as interested witness but the credibility and trustworthiness of his testimony is crucial for proving charge against an accused person and no other witness who can corroborate the version of decoy can be treated as of sterling worth in absence of testimony of decoy. In the instant case, though, in the complaint, complainant has alleged that petitioner demanded illegal gratification but the subsequent trap proceedings, arranged by Anti Corruption Bureau, foiled in as much as all attempts made to catch the petitioner red-handed were thwarted. True it is that recorded conversation was available with the A.C.B. but the voice recorded therein was that of the petitioner is under serious doubt, more particularly, in the wake of the fact that complainant himself has absolved the petitioner from commission of any offence including demand of illegal gratification. Tendering affidavit by the complainant that petitioner never demanded any illegal gratification from him puts the entire prosecution case under serious cloud and to a great extent demolishes it. Tendering affidavit by the complainant that petitioner never demanded any illegal gratification from him puts the entire prosecution case under serious cloud and to a great extent demolishes it. Therefore, castigating petitioner for offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 is founded on illusory grounds. There cannot be two opinions that after retraction by the complainant from his earlier version, it would be rather difficult for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification. The prosecution in the given circumstances cannot force the petitioner to give his voice sample for making record conversation and inculpatory evidence against him by virtue of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. In the case diary, complainant's written letter dated 14th of October, 2015 is available on record. Moreover, the affidavit tendered by complainant absolving the petitioner of all the allegations is also traceable in the case diary besides withdrawal of the amount of bribe, allegedly demanded from him by the petitioner. Therefore, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, sans plausible and reliable incriminating evidence against the petitioner, continuing proceedings in the matter would obviously result in miscarriage of justice. At this juncture, even the submission of learned Public Prosecutor, that investigation has been completed and sanction for prosecution has been granted against the petitioner, cannot acquire much significance in the light of subsequent events, i.e., withdrawal of complaint by the complainant. The Court, while considering plea of the petitioner cannot lose sight of a very vital fact that no work of the complainant was pending with him apart from complainant's unequivocal version to absolve the petitioner of the offence including under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. Absence of motive of demanding bribe is also conspicuously missing in the matter so as to render the entire prosecution case vulnerable. Absence of motive of demanding bribe is also conspicuously missing in the matter so as to render the entire prosecution case vulnerable. The recitals of the affidavit, tendered by complainant, in this behalf, are also relevant, and therefore, the complete text of the affidavit is reproduced, in vernacular, which reads as under: 'kiFk i= euds dqyoUr flag iq= xtu flag tkfr dqEgkj] fuoklh 55 ,y-,u-ih- rglhy ineiqj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ekfyd QeZ dey ,.M+ dEiuh dk gqa tks fd fuEufyf[kr rF; 'kiFkiwoZd c;ku djrk gwa fd%& 1- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd eSa 'kiFkxzfgrk d`f"k foi.ku cksM+Z esa fuekZ.k dk;Z lEcU/kh Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z djrk gwa o orZeku esa jkt- jkT; d`f"k foi.ku cksM+Z dk Bsdsnkj gwaA 2- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk jkt- mPp d`f"k foi.ku cksM+Z dk;kZy; Jhxaxkuxj esa fuekZ.k dk;Z] lc ;kM+Z jkeflagiqj iSdst la-&1@2014&2015 d`f"k mit e.M+h lfefr Jhfot;uxj dk vfUre le;kof/k izdj.k Lohd`fr gsrq fnuakd 7-10-2015 dks o`r dk;kZy;] Jhxaxkuxj esa [k.M vuwix<+ ls izkIr gqvk FkkA 3- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd esjh xyrh u gksrs gq, esjk dk;Z le; ij u gksus ds dkj.k Hkqxrku esa nsjh gks ldrh gS] rc eSa d`f"k foi.ku cksM+Z dk;kZy; xaxkuxj x;k o ,d deZpkjh ls feyk] ftlus dgk fd fcy xksfoUn flag ys[kkf/kdkjh ikl djsxk] mldh ,lhch esa f'kdk;r dj nsaA 4- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd fnukad 7-10-2015 dks eSa xksfoUn flag ls ugha feyk o u gh esjh mlls dksbZ ckr gqbZA tks okrkZ fjdkM+Z gqbZ] mlesa esjh o ,d vU; deZpkjh dh gSA 5- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd eq> 'kiFkxzfgrk us ,lhch Jhxaxkuxj okys dks Hkqxrku izkIr djus dh uh;r ls xksfoUn flag ls okrkZ gksuk xyr fy[kk;k gS] ftldk eq>s [ksn gSA eSaus fnuakd 8-10-2015 dks fM+IVh lkgc dks okLrfodrk crk nh Fkh o fuosnu dj fn;k Fkk fd esjh fjiksVZ o f'kdk;r o okrkZ xyr gS o ml ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh u djsa] rc mUgksaus dgk fd ns[k ysaxsA 6- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd fnuakd 11-10-2015 dks vuqix<+ esa eq>s ,d ,lhch ds deZpkjh us gh tkudkjh nh fd ;fn rq>s dk;Zokgh ugha djokuh gks rks fyf[kr esa fjiksVZ nsa ns] oukZ ml ij dkjokgh dj nsaxs] ftl ij fnuakd 12-10-2015 dks izkFkhZ ,lhch dk;kZy; Jhxaxkuxj esa mifLFkr gks mi v/kh{kd egksn; dks ,d fyf[kr izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fuosnu dj fn;k fd eq>ls dksbZ fj'or ugha ekax jgk gSA fnukad 9-10-2015 dks vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk vuqix<+ }kjk esjk fcy ikl djus ij jkf'k esjs [kkrs esa tek gks xbZA eSa frokM+h dks fj'or jkf'k nsdj idM+okuk ugha pkgrkA ftl ij fj'or esa nh tkus okyh jkf'k eq>s okfil ykSVk nh xbZA fnuakd 12-10-2015 dks eq>s 'kiFkxzfgrk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= esa Hkh eSaus xksfoUn flag }kjk fj'or ugha ekaxus ds rF; dk gh mYys[k fd;k gSA 7- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd djhc 20&25 fnu iwoZ eq> 'kiFkxzfgrk dks tkudkjh feyh fd esjh xyr fjiksVZ lgh eku dj ,lhch pkSdh Jhxaxkuxj us xksfoUn flag ds f[kykQ ,lhch t;iqj eq[;ky; esa eqdnek ntZ djok fn;k] ftl ij eSa vfr- iqfyl v/kh{kd ls feyh rks mUgksus crk;k fd vc gekjs gkFk esa dqN Hkh ugha gS] geus dk;Zokgh djh nh gSA rqe t;iqj tkdj feyksA 8- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd tc fnuakd 8-10-2015 dks esjs }kjk okLrfodrk mtkxj dh tk pqdh Fkh o fnuakd 12-10-2015 dks fyf[kr fjiksVZ is'k dj dk;Zokgh ugha fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k tk pqdk Fkk ds ckotqn eqdnek ntZ djokuk iw.kZr;k xyr ,oa VkjxsV dh iwfrZ djuk izekf.kr djrk gSA 9- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd eSa 'kiFkxzfgrk fnuakd 7-10-2015 dks izLrqr =qfViw.kZ fjiksVZ dk leFkZu u dj fnuakd 8-10-2015 dks fd, x;s ekSf[kd fuosnu ,ao fnuakd 12-10-2015 dks izLrqr fyf[kr fjiksVZ ds leFkZu esa gh c;ku nwaxkA 10- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd eq> 'kiFkxzfgrk }kjk fnuakd 12-10-2015 dks izLrqr fyf[kr fjiksVZ dks ns[krs gq, eqdnek ntZ djus ds i'pkr esjs ls dksbZ iwNrkN ughsa dh xbZ gSA lEHkor% esjs c;ku Hkh Lor% xyr fy[k fy;s x;s gksaxs] d`i;k xkSj QjekosaA 11- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd okLrfodrk dh tkudkjh ds ckotwn xksfoUnflag lgk;d ys[kkdkj ds fo:) ,lhch pkSdh] Jhxaxkuxj }kjk ntZ djok, x;s eqdnek ds leFkZu esa uk rks eq>s 'kiFkxzfgrk us dksbZ dFku fn, gSa] o u gh nwaxkA mijksDr 'kiFk i= ds iSjk la[;k 1 ls 11 esa of.kZr reke rF; eSaus viuh futh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj lgh ,oa lR; c;ku fd;s gSa dksbZ Hkh rF; ?kVk;k] c<+k;k o fNik;k ugha gS] bZ'oj esjh enn djsaA fnukad % 'kiFkxzfgrk dqyoUr flag 10. Thus, in totality, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is very much desirable to exercise inherent powers ex debito justitiae for doing real and substantial justice in the matter for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Therefore, for preventing abuse of the process of the Court and to prevent miscarriage of justice, I feel inclined to interfere in the matter so as to quash impugned FIR and further proceedings persuant thereto. The upshot of above discussion is that the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and entire proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.