JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others: (i) Quash the FIR, being case crime no. 186/17, P.S. Prem Nagar, Dehradun, lodged under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. (ii) Direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation against respondent no. 3 and also on the pending FIRs, all registered at P.S. Premnagar, Dehradun, bearing numbers: (a) FIR no. 59/2015, u/s 420/467/468,471/120B IPC. (b) FIR no. 02/2-17, u/s 420/467/468/471,120B IPC. (c) FIR no. 47/2017, u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC (d) FIR being case crime no. 186/2017, u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986. (e) FIR no. 129/2016, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the criminal writ petition. 3. Five criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner, from time to time, as is evident from relief (ii) of the prayer clause made by the petitioner in present writ petition. These FIRs were lodged against the petitioner in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. 4. It is, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner that a direction be given to the CBI to take investigation against all the pending FIRs registered against the petitioner at P.S. Premnagar and that the CBI may be directed to conduct investigation against respondent no. 3 as well. 5. According to the petitioner, bribe was demanded at the behest of respondent no. 3 from the petitioner. The said demand was not directly raised by respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 while serving as Sr. Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, personally called the petitioner to his office. Petitioner was not financially very stable at relevant point of time, but in order to buy peace, he made payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to respondent no. 3. Yet, respondent no. 3 was not satisfied by the payment and demanded more money from the petitioner. This caused psychological disorder being ‘agoraphobia disorder’, apart from heart ailments, for which the petitioner is undergoing regular treatment. Inability of the petitioner to meet the illegal demands made his life miserable. Respondent no. 3 is serving as senior officer in Uttarakhand police. Respondent no. 3 was not satisfied by the payment and demanded more money from the petitioner. This caused psychological disorder being ‘agoraphobia disorder’, apart from heart ailments, for which the petitioner is undergoing regular treatment. Inability of the petitioner to meet the illegal demands made his life miserable. Respondent no. 3 is serving as senior officer in Uttarakhand police. Respondent no. 3 not only lodged fresh FIRs against the petitioner, but also threatened him that he will be roped in many criminal cases. The name of the petitioner was added in the FIRs only at the behest of respondent no. 3 with an intention to harass him. 6. In rest of the paragraphs of the petition, the petitioner has tried to indicate as to how he was implicated in various FIRs at the instance of respondent no. 3. In a nutshell, several FIRs were filed against the petitioner at the instance of respondent no. 3, because he could not fulfill the demands raised by respondent no. 3. In terms of paragraph 29 of the petition, it has been stated that respondent no. 3, being a police officer, is a public servant within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and since the allegations made against respondent no. 3 in present petition make out a cognizable offence in terms of both the IPC as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, CBI should be directed to investigate the cases in terms of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction is no more required in terms of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 8. Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State in which the status of the criminal cases lodged against the petitioner has been given in paragraph 5 of said affidavit. 9. It has been stated in short counter affidavit that the FIRs were lodged by different individuals / complainants and all FIRs are similar in nature, i.e., sale of land on the basis of forgery and fictitious documents by inducing and deceiving the relevant persons. In paragraph 6 of the short counter affidavit, it has been averred that the complaint was lodged before respondent no. In paragraph 6 of the short counter affidavit, it has been averred that the complaint was lodged before respondent no. 3 by four persons, namely, Vinay Chamoli, Surender Singh Miyan, Mukesh Sighania and Rajendra Valter, which was directed by respondent no. 3 to S.S.P., Dehradun, for necessary legal action. As per paragraph 7 of the short counter affidavit, the petitioner has made misleading, baseless and false averments against respondent no. 3. In paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit, it has been averred that petitioner is a member of a gang, who is indulged in anti social activities, which falls under Section 2(b)(i) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and as such is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 10. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the veracity of allegations leveled by the petitioner against respondent no. 3 can be tested only by lodging FIR against respondent no. 3 by conducting Preliminary Enquiry by the CBI. The scheme of Preliminary Enquiry has been dealt with in Chapter 5 of the Central Vigilance Commissioner Manual, 2017. Chapter 9 of the Central Bureau of Investigation Crime Manual deals with the Preliminary Enquiry. 11. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab and others, (2009) 1 SCC 441 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled out that the Court can direct investigation of cases by the CBI. 12. Parameters of handing over investigation to CBI have been laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others vs Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521 . These parameters are reproduced here-in-below for reference: 5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by the CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by the CBI. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by the CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India, (1999) 67 SCC 667. This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the report has held thus: "The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any other offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of "LIFE" and "LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been explained in a manner which has infused "LIFE" into the letters of Article 21." 6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the Police or the CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law- abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by the CBI. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by the CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause (supra). 7. Just to point out that there is no prima facie finding by the High Court, while directing an inquiry by the impugned order, we would like to extract the following few sentences: At page 8 of the impugned judgment, it is stated : "It is also alleged that the petitioner is being harassed owing to the reason that he was not amenable to the illegal demands made by the Minister concerned." The High Court further observed: "We however, forbear from excoriating the Minister on the basis of what has been said in the said News Magazine at this stage." Proceeding further, the Court observed: "If the allegations in the writ petitions are correct, the rights of the respondents must be vindicated and the party at whose instance such orders have been issued in bad faith, his continuance in the office is not in public interest." At page 9 of the judgment, the learned Judges observed: "If the allegations made in these and various other writ petitions are found to have any ring of truth, no same person can claim that the affairs of the State are being run in accord with the Constitution." From the above, we see that the High Court has merely quoted certain allegations made against the Minister. It has not taken into consideration the reply given by the Minister. While directing an inquiry by the CBI, the High Court, as stated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause (supra), must record a prima facie finding as to the truth of such allegations with reference to the reply filed. In the instant case, we have noticed that the High Court has merely proceeded on the basis of the averments made in the petitions without taking into consideration the reply filed and without expressing its prima facie opinion in regard to these allegations. In the instant case, we have noticed that the High Court has merely proceeded on the basis of the averments made in the petitions without taking into consideration the reply filed and without expressing its prima facie opinion in regard to these allegations. This having been not done, we find it necessary that the judgment impugned should be set aside and the matters be remanded to the High Court to consider the pleadings of the parties and decide whether the material on record is sufficient to direct the inquiry by the CBI. While doing so, it will take into consideration not only the allegations made in the writ petitions but also the reply given by the Minister. After such an exercise if the Court still thinks that the allegations require a further investigation by the CBI then it may do so after recording a prima facie finding which, of course, will be for the limited purpose of directing an inquiry. 8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to the merits of the allegations or the reply thereto because this is something which has to be done by the High Court in the first instance. 9. The appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court.” 13. The conclusion would be that the High Court has power to direct enquiry. However, as has been stated above, there is no sufficient material on record to find that respondent no. 3 was instrumental in prosecuting the petitioner and, that too, when his palm was not greased. 14. A public servant is said to commit an offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty, if he, by corrupt or illegal means, or by otherwise, abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable things or pecuniary advantage. 17. In State vs. Mohd. Raza Beigh, 1981 Srinagar LJ 416 : 1982 Cri LJ (NOC) 66, it was observed by learned Judge that the object and scheme of the Act would be that there should be effective check against bribery and corruption in the public services in the State, but at the same time, honest elements should be protected against prosecution on the basis of frivolous accusations of this nature. The initiative lies with the appropriate authority in the matter and is only where it has accorded sanction of the prosecution of a Government servant that the Court can take lawful cognizance order. 15. The sanction is a safeguard for the innocent and not a shield for the guilty. It is not part of an official duty to commit an offence and never can be. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. Directing the CBI to investigate a case against a public servant may take under its umbrella every Act whether the public servant is innocent or not? The right approach would be if there is direct and reasonably collected material connected with allegations leveled against a public servant, a direction for CBI investigation should be given. But if in each and every case a direction is given to investigate the case against a public servant, at the drop of hat, the same will affect the morale of the public servant. For, then nobody will take action against wrong doers in the society. Everybody will be afraid that if he took action against somebody, the person may move a petition for CBI investigation against him, which will be highly demoralizing to an honest public servant. If, on the one hand, corruption should not be tolerated, it should also be ensured, on the other hand, that nobody should be unnecessarily victimized. The Court has to strike a balance between two extremes. 16. In the instant case, the Court has no occasion to certify that respondent no. 3 is an honest public servant. It is not saying that he is dishonest, either. It is an admitted fact that many cases under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act are pending against the petitioner. The possibility of wreaking vengeance by the petitioner against respondent no. 3 on account of the fact that several cases of Gangsters Act have been lodged at the instance of respondent no. 3 cannot be ruled out. There is no direct evidence against respondent no. 3. It is not a case of trap. The allegations simply are that respondent no. 3 is instrumental in roping the petitioner in several false criminal cases, which are pending adjudication before the competent courts. 3 cannot be ruled out. There is no direct evidence against respondent no. 3. It is not a case of trap. The allegations simply are that respondent no. 3 is instrumental in roping the petitioner in several false criminal cases, which are pending adjudication before the competent courts. The allegations per se, therefore, do not make out a case of corruption or illegal means by respondent no. 3. The arbitrary use of power by the Court for directing the CBI to investigate against any public servant would be counterproductive to the public servant, who will always be hesitant to nab the criminals even in due discharge of their official duties. Material facts which have been placed before this Court do not suggest that the Court should direct CBI to investigate the offences mentioned in the prayer clause of the petition. Direction by the Court is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise on a solemn and sacrosanct act which also affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous prosecution and must, therefore, be strictly complied. The Court must be satisfied that the facts constitute the offence before directing the CBI to prosecute a public servant. It must record the grounds of satisfaction in both the eventualities, i.e., while directing CBI to investigate somebody or while refusing the prayer of the petitioner for investigation by CBI. The material in the instant case is not sufficient or trustworthy so as to direct CBI to investigate alleged commission of offence by respondent no. 3. The petitioner wants the investigation of the cases lodged against him and the involvement of respondent no. 3 in the same. In two criminal cases lodged against the petitioner, he has been charge-sheeted and one of the cases has been compounded at the behest of the complainant / victim. 17. In para 18 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (2011) 11 S.C.R. 281, it has been held as under: “18. 17. In para 18 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (2011) 11 S.C.R. 281, it has been held as under: “18. In the recent case of State of West Bengal and others vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, [(2010) 2 SCC 571] a Constitutional Bench of this Court, while holding that no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtain the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, has cautioned that the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. This caution equally applies to the cases where the High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI for securing the ends of justice.” 18. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant desired relief to the petitioner in present writ petition. 19. Criminal writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 20. The same will, however, not preclude the petitioner from approaching the CBI directly. If the petitioner approaches the CBI directly and the CBI finds same substance in his complaint, it may proceed with the same strictly in accordance with law. 21. The petitioner may also take recourse to other relevant forums which are available to him for seeking the desired relief through this present writ petition. 22. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw prayer no. (i) with liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. Such prayer is granted. 23. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the allegations, for, corruption in no case should be tolerated, but at the same time, a public servant should not feel demoralized or should not be victimized, if he is innocent. The authorities have to strike a balance between the two. 24. Criminal writ petition thus stands disposed of.