JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Since the issue involved in both the present misc. petitions is identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the present petitions have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(i) The FIR No.532/12 dated 26.12.2012 Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur and its further proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 3. The aforequoted prayer clause indicates that the present FIR bearing No.532/12 dated 26.12.2012 is pending investigation against the petitioners at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The said FIR No.532/12 dated 26.12.2012 has already been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed in Sanjay Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 98/2013). 5. Mr.Mahesh Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Nishant Bora representing the petitioners submits that the basic arguments and facts of the earlier case of Sanjay Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) remains the same, but he has certain additional submissions regarding the present petitioners, who are the State Officers. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the circular dated 06.10.2008 issued by the Chairman & Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, in which the role was attributed to the petitioners, and as per the said circular, a Committee was authorized to witness the commissioning of generator only, and not the overall commissioning of the Plant. 7. The relevant Clause 7 of the aforementioned circular dated 06.10.2008 reads as under:- "7. Superintending Engineer (RPPC) will authorize a committee of the following officers for witnessing the commissioning of generator. i) Xen/Aen (O&M) of the Discom where generating plaint is located. ii) Xen/Aen (GSS) of RVPN of the area where generating plant is located. iii) Xen/Aen (M&P) nominated by the SE (M&P) of the concerned Discom to whom the generator is allotted. iv) The Representative of the Developer/Generator. i) Xen/Aen (O&M) of the Discom where generating plaint is located. ii) Xen/Aen (GSS) of RVPN of the area where generating plant is located. iii) Xen/Aen (M&P) nominated by the SE (M&P) of the concerned Discom to whom the generator is allotted. iv) The Representative of the Developer/Generator. The above Committee shall visit the site and prepare the joint meter reading of the Energy meters installed at newly connected generator panel and the 33 KV side and on EHV sided meter installed at the concerned pooling/receiving 220 or 132 KV GSS and prepare the commissioning report giving all the details of the system." 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the Office Order dated 06.01.2012 issued by the Office of the Superintending Engineer (RDPPC), Jodhpur Discom, 400 KV GSS Control Room, Heerapura, Jaipur, reflecting that the commissioning was again in respect of generator only and for a particular reading of the energy meters to be installed at the delivery point. 9. The relevant portion of the aforesaid office order dated 06.01.2012 reads as under: "A committee of the following officers is hereby constituted to witness the commissioning of the above generator: 1. The X.En (M&P)/A.En (M&P), to be nominated by the SE (M&P) JDVVNL, Jodhpur. 2. The Executive Engineer / Assistant Engineer (132KV GSS), Pokran. 3. Representative of RREC. 4. Representative of DDE Renewables Pvt. Ltd. (Developer). The above committee shall visit the site and prepare the joint meter reading of the Energy meters to be installed at the delivery point and prepare the commissioning report giving all the details of the system. The above committee shall also ensure that the main meters and back up meters and metering equipment shall comply with norms of RERC/CEA, also as per Grid Code and in accordance with relevant provisions of Metering Regulation 2007 and properly calibrated. The committee shall also check and furnish in their commissioning report metering details of the metering equipment available on generator panel and pooling receiving station. The Committee shall ensure that CT-PT and Energy meter to be installed are tested from discom Lab and NABL accredited Lab respectively." 10. The committee shall also check and furnish in their commissioning report metering details of the metering equipment available on generator panel and pooling receiving station. The Committee shall ensure that CT-PT and Energy meter to be installed are tested from discom Lab and NABL accredited Lab respectively." 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that he is laying down a foundation to show that the role of the present petitioners was not to give a commissioning certificate, but was required to give certain information of commissioning of certain component in the Plant. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also shown to this Court the Commissioning Report for Solar Power Plant dated 10.01.2012, which gives only the details of connectivity and the details of Transformer, Inverter, Modules and Switchgear installed in the Plant. 12. The relevant portion of the aforementioned Report dated 10.01.2012 also reads as under:- cscasc 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further shown to this Court the document dated 16.01.2012, in which the brief details of Solar PV Power Generation Project Commissioned are given, and again the said document only speaks of the Inverter Station, generator and location, as it was in consonance with the earlier orders. 14. The relevant portion of the aforementioned document dated 16.01.2012 is as follows: "Brief Details of Solar PV Power Generation Project Commissioned are:- 1. Detail of Solar Inverter Station (Inverter cum Transformer Unit)- a) 5 x 1250 KVA, 300V/33 KV Transformer Sr. No.41409/16 to 41409/20 b) Inverters:- Make/Type:- Bonfiglioli/RPS1110 2. Generator 01 No x 05 MW Solar PV (CRYSTALLINE PV TECHNOLOGY) 3. Location Village Askandra, Tehsil Nachna & District Jaisalmer. 4. Date of Commissioning - 10th January, 2012. The above mentioned Solar PV Power Generation Project at the site Village Askandra, Tehsil Nachana & District Jaisalmer is Temporarily connected to newly installed metering arrangement on 33 KV Line at T-OFF near 33/11 KV GSS, Chandsar, Pokaran. The commissioning certificate is issued on the basis of the minutes of the meeting dated 10th Jan'2012." 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that though the present FIR has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Sanjay Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), but the aforesaid additional points may also be considered by this Court. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 17. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), but the aforesaid additional points may also be considered by this Court. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. This Court has already quashed the impugned FIR qua the Company, for the reasons, which are also applicable in the present case. 19. The judgment rendered by this Court on 13.12.2018 in the case of Sanjay Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(a) Quash the impugned FIR No.532 dated 26.12.2012 pending investigation at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. (b) pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The aforequoted prayer clauses indicate that the present FIR bearing No.532 dated 26.12.2012 is pending investigation against the petitioners at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Since there is similitude in the controversy involved in all these misc. petitions, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4. For the purpose of the present adjudication and for the sake of brevity, it is considered expedient to refer to the facts pleaded in the lead case being S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.98/2013. 5. The petitioner, represented by its Director, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in the business of generation and sale of Solar Power. 6. The National Thermal Power Corporation Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited (henceforth to be referred to as 'NTPC-NVVN'), which is also a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is acting as a Nodal Agency for facilitating purchase and sale of solar power under the National Solar Mission under the aegis of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, which has issued the guidelines for selection of New Grid Connected Solar Power Projects in July, 2010. 7. 7. The petitioner-Company, amongst others, was selected by NTPC-NVVN for development of a Solar Power Project under the aforementioned Mission of the Government of India, so as to set up a Solar Power Project of 5 Megawatt capacity based on Advanced Technology at the Village Level. 8. On 10.01.2011, a Power Purchase Agreement (in short, 'PPA/Agreement') was signed between the parties i.e. the petitioner and the NTPCNVVN, and the said Agreement is on record as Annexure-3. The Agreement contains provisions regarding Scheduled Commissioning Date of the Power Project, which was 09.01.2012. The said Agreement also provides for various conditions viz. Performance Bank Guarantee, levy of Liquidated Damages (Penalty) by invoking Bank Guarantee in the phase-wise manner, in case of delay in commissioning of the plant within one year of the Agreement. 9. Article 16 of the aforementioned Agreement provides for amicable settlement of dispute between the parties, failing which the dispute resolution by Arbitration can be resorted to. 10. Thereafter, on the basis of a news item published in Dainik Bhaskar on 20.04.2012, the present FIR was registered at Police Station, CPS ACB, Jaipur against some of the State Government Officers and seven Solar Power Developer Companies, setting up Solar Power Plants and their representatives, including the present petitioner. 11. The present FIR contains the fact that the PPA was executed on 10.01.2011 between the petitioner/Company and NTPC-NVVN at New Delhi, and one of the conditions in the Agreement was that the Solar Power Plant will be commissioned within one year of the PPA i.e. by 09.01.2012, failing which the Performance Bank Guarantees furnished by the Company shall be invoked in a phased manner. In this respect, it was provided in the Agreement that for a delay of one month, 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee will be invoked; for a delay of two months, 40% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee will be invoked; and the delay of more than two months and upto three months or above, will entail invocation of remaining 40% of the Performance Bank Guarantee. 12. 12. The allegation levelled in the FIR is that the report for commissioning the Power Plant on 09.01.2012 was given by a Committee comprising of one Shri N.K. Barara, Superintending Engineer, M&P, Jodhpur Discom; Shri Dinesh Kumar Chhangani, Project Manager, Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaisalmer; Shri M.L. Ojha, Assistant Engineer, 132 KV Sub-station, Pokharan and; Shri Manoj Gupta, representative of the Company. The Commissioning Certificate, which is on record as Annexure-5, certified that the plant has been commissioned on 09.01.2012 and the same was issued on 16.01.2012 by the Jodhpur Discom. 13. The FIR further alleges that as per the record received from Jodhpur Discom, a meter reading from 09.01.2012 to 1.02.2012 shows that only 879 Units were produced by the Plant, whereas 5 Megawatt Power Plant should produce 25000 Units on an average per day. Further, the allegation, as has been levelled in the FIR, is that the aforementioned Commissioning Report is concocted and the same was prepared to avoid penalty clauses i.e invocation of Bank Guarantee. 14. The Plant was connected with the Grid on 09.01.2012 and commenced generation of power on 10.01.2012, but full capacity of the production was not achieved, as mentioned in the FIR. 15. In March, 2012, the NTPC-NVVN, upon consideration of the earlier report dated 10.01.2012 regarding commissioning of the Power Plant on 09.01.2012, declared and certified the commissioning of the plant from 28.01.2012, which amounted to a delay of 19 days. Thus, on 22.03.2012, 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee was thus invoked by the NTPC-NVVN, as per the Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA. The said Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA reads as under:- "4.6 Liquidated damages for delay in commencement of supply of power to NVVN - 4.6.1 If the SPD is unable to commence supply of power to NVVN by the Scheduled Commissioning Date other than for the reasons specified in Article 4.5.1, the SPD shall pay to NVVN, Liquidated Damages for the delay in such commencement of supply of power and making the Contracted Capacity available for dispatch by the Scheduled Commissioning Date as per the following: a. Delay upto one (1) month NVVN will encash 20% of total Performance Bank Guarantee. b. Delay of more than one (1) month and upto two months NVVN will encash another 40% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee. b. Delay of more than one (1) month and upto two months NVVN will encash another 40% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee. c. Delay of more than two and upto three months NVVN will encash the remaining Performance Bank Guarantee." 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no benefit has been taken by the Company, as it has paid the Performance Bank Guarantee for the delay caused upto 28.01.2012 i.e. within one month from the stipulated date of commissioning of the Plant, which was 09.01.2012. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Company, therefore, out of its total Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.12,25,65,000/-, has already given 20% thereof i.e. Rs.2,45,13,000/- as a penalty towards the delay of 19 days caused in commissioning of the Power Plant, in accordance with Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA. Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee was invoked by the NTPC-NVVN, and the penalty arising therefrom has also been paid, and therefore, no loss has been caused to the NTPC-NVVN or any other Agency of the State. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the FIR itself fortifies the fact that no benefit was taken by the Company nor any valuable security has been put to loss, as the petitioners have already paid the penalty i.e. to the tune of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee, in accordance with Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA, towards the delay of less than 30 days in commissioning of the Power Plant. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioner is not a public servant and there is no allegation against him for abusing his position, and therefore, no occasion had arisen to bring him within the purview of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the definition of the term 'commissioning' was not there in the original Agreement, and therefore, the report of the Committee regarding connection of the Plant with the Grid on 09.01.2012, which resulted into injection of the power in the Grid on 10.01.2012, was a subjective view, which was further made subject to the ascertainment made by the NTPC-NVVN. But since the term 'commissioning' was not defined in PPA or anywhere else, the certification so made on 09.01.2012 by the Committee would not fall within the domain of the criminal offence, as is sought to be made out in the present FIR. 21. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, however, came out with a definition of the term 'commissioning' on 24.02.2012, in which the said term was to mean that "A solar PV project will be considered as commissioned if energy has flown into the grid at rated capacity of the plant taking into account the availability of solar radiation on that day". The said definition was further clarified on 22/19.3.2012 by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, to mean "As an interim clarification, a solar PV project will be considered as commissioned if all equipment as per rated project capacity has been installed and energy flown into the grid." 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that when there is no precise definition of the term 'commissioning' and the said term, in common parlance, means that the plant was connected with Grid, which, in the present case, was admittedly done on 09.01.2012, and only after such clarification of the definition of the term 'commissioning', NTPC-NVVN, vide letter dated 05.07.2012, ascertained the date of commissioning of the Project as 28.01.2012. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that thereafter, the Discom had issued a synchronization certificate on 04.04.2012, which is on record as Annexure-9, to the effect that the Project was synchronized and connected to the Grid on 09.01.2012, which is not wrong; but the definition of the term 'commissioning', of course, was under continuous review by the respondents. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus, submitted that the aforementioned Commissioning Report cannot be said to be concocted. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Expert Enquiry Committee of the NTPC as well as the NTPC itself have ascertained the date of commissioning of the Project as 28.01.2012, and thus, the NTPC has taken into account causing of the delay of 19 days from the stipulated date as mentioned in the agreement, which was 09.01.2012. Therefore, the penalty while invocation of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee has already been imposed to the penal loss upon the petitioner/Company. 26. Therefore, the penalty while invocation of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee has already been imposed to the penal loss upon the petitioner/Company. 26. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid date of 28.01.2012 was further reviewed by another expert committee constituted by the NTPC, which also then concurred with the said date of 28.01.2012 as the date of commissioning of the Power Plant. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from the FIR itself, it is clear that the Company had commissioned the Solar Plant on 28.01.2012, and as per the PPA, on account of delay of 19 days, a Performance Bank Guarantee has already been invoked to the extent of 20% of the total Bank Guarantee, in accordance with Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA. 28. Thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, no advantage has been taken by the Company or the petitioners to bring them within the ambit of the provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed the definition of Section 415 IPC and submitted that the ingredients of cheating are not made out in the present FIR as the petitioner has not deceived anybody to deliver any property to him or has not induced anybody to do or omit to do anything. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the NTPC had taken a clear stand that issue of commissioning and the entire matter was inquired into by the NTPC-NVNN as well as Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India and neither the purchaser of the power i.e. NVNN nor the Ministry has alleged any wrongdoing on the part of the Company. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 18.01.2013 in this case, which reads as follows: " The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.532/2012 registered at P.S. CPS ACB, Jaipur on the basis of a newspaper reporting published in a newspaper. The gist of the allegations levelled in the FIR is that seven different companies set up solar power plants in the State. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.532/2012 registered at P.S. CPS ACB, Jaipur on the basis of a newspaper reporting published in a newspaper. The gist of the allegations levelled in the FIR is that seven different companies set up solar power plants in the State. It has further been alleged in the FIR that in order to avoid imposition of penalty for breach of the conditions of the contract, the officials of the respective companies in connivance with the officials of Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., antedated the commissioning certificates and thereby caused loss worth crores of rupees to the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to certain documents said to have been issued by the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Government of India and the documents issued by the purchaser of power generated by the solar power plants namely, N.T.P.C. Vidhyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. submits that the very definition of the word 'commissioning' was not final when the power plants became functional and the controversy in this regard has been set to rest vide a letter dated 19.3.2012 issued by the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy i.e. nearly after 1 months the disputed commissioning report was prepared. Learned counsel has further pointed out to this Court the commissioning report prepared by the expert group as regards the solar power plant, subject matter of the dispute, and submits that at page 44 of the said report of the expert group, which has been submitted to the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy in March, 2012, it has clearly been mentioned that the petitioner's solar plant had started supplying energy to the grid on 10.1.2012. Learned counsel thus submits that ex-facie the allegations levelled in the FIR are patently false & baseless and, therefore, the very registration of the FIR in this matter is nothing short of an abuse of process of Court. He further submits that though the petitioner's company had already deposited a sum of Rs.2,35,13,000/- for the alleged delay of 19 days in commissioning of the project but the said proceedings are under challenge before the Arbitrator as the definition & the parameters of the very term 'commissioning' was finalised much later. He thus submits that the FIR deserves to be quashed. He thus submits that the FIR deserves to be quashed. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the FIR and the documents filed along with the misc. petition. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration. Issue notice returnable in three weeks. Learned P.P. accepts notice on behalf of State. It is also deemed fit that a reply be sought from N.T.P.C. Vidhyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. Hence, counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead N.T.P.C. Vidhyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. as a party respondent to the misc. petition within a period of three days. Upon the application being filed, notice be issued to the N.T.P.C. Vidhyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. also. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.532/2012 registered at P.S. CPS ACB, Jaipur." 32. Learned counsel for the petitioners further drawn the attention of this Court towards the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 20.12.2017, which also reads as under:- " Shri Ajaypal Lamba, S.P., A.C.B. present in Court states that the Investigating Officer concerned after conducting investigation, reached to a conclusion that the offences have not been proved and a report to this effect was forwarded to the Headquarter, A.C.B. but the concerned officers at the Headquarter, A.C.B. have expressed their tentative disagreement with the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in his report. He prays for time to submit a conclusive report in this regard. List on 5.2.2018. Interim order, if any, granted to the petitioners shall continue till the disposal of these matters. A copy of this order be placed in each file." 33. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed out that at best, the deviation from the commissioning date could be a civil dispute, for which the penalty clauses of the PPA can be invoked and the appropriate Performance Bank Guarantee as per the PPA could be encashed, as the last resort of the relevant clause as per the Agreement. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that on the face of the FIR, no offence is made out. 35. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that on the face of the FIR, no offence is made out. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Performance Bank Guarantee to the extent of 20% thereof was invoked on 22.03.2012 for the delay of 19 days caused in the commissioning of the Plant, whereas the present FIR had been lodged on 26.12.2012, much subsequent to the invocation of the Bank Guarantee, and the NTPC's stand itself makes it clear that only the PPA between the petitioner and the NTPC-NVVN was to hold the field, rather than the vague allegations. 36. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the present matter is of contractual nature, and if at all there is any deviation or violation of the contractual conditions, which are governed by the PPA entered on 10.01.2011, then it shall be open for the parties concerned to seek redressal in accordance with the PPA itself. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that Article 16 of the PPA deals with the dispute resolution, and at best, the dispute resolution can be resorted to in accordance with the PPA. 38. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Annexure-5, the certification of commissioning of the complete system on 09.01.2012, was made by a Full Committee, but the same has not attained finality, as it was reviewed by the NTPC on 05.07.2012, and the NTPC has changed the date of commissioning on the basis of the definition provided for the term 'commissioning'. 39. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drawn the attention of this Court towards the definition of the term 'commissioning' as provided in Annexure-9 dated 24.2.2012. The said definition of the term 'commissioning' and para 2 of Annexure-9 dated 24.02.2012, read as under:- "Commissioning of a solar photovoltaic power plant may be defined as : A solar PV project will be considered as commissioned if energy flown into the grid at rated capacity of the plant taking into account the availability of solar radiation on that day. 2. As several projects are getting commissioned now, it has been decided that NVVN may use the above definition in the meantime. 2. As several projects are getting commissioned now, it has been decided that NVVN may use the above definition in the meantime. For projects, which are already commissioned and committee of nodal agency has already visited, NVVN may verify the documents to ascertain if the above conditions are fulfilled and obtain documents as may be possible now i.e. after the actual date of commissioning. The nodal agencies may, however, continue to perform the function of coordinating agency in this regard. However, for projects which are still to be commissioned, this may be followed strictly." 40. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drawn the attention of this Court towards the review of the definition of the term 'commissioning' which was again clarified on 19.03.2012 by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, and the same reads as under: "3. The Committee discussed the issues and it was felt that the clarification provided by the Ministry on commissioning of grid connected solar power projects is basically to provide clarity in commissioning of these projects. The definition is certainly not performance monitoring. It was further noted that as per guidelines for selection of these projects, it was mandatory to install necessary equipment to continuously measure solar radiation and other weather parameters by the SPDs. However, most developers have not been able to do so yet primarily because they are also learning. Considering the issues related to installation and proper functioning of solar radiation measuring equipment, the following was recommended: i) As an interim clarification, a solar PV project will be considered as commissioned if all equipment as per rated project capacity has been installed and energy has flown into the grid. ii) The commissioning report will include the following information: a. A certificate of the Discom/STU stating that the plant has been synchronized with the grid. b. Two different snap shots of the meter reading before and after commissioning during the day and snap shots of the plant from various angles. c. A certificate issued by a Committee authorized by NVVN stating the date of commissioning. iii. Additionally, data on generation of the plant on the day of the commissioning may be obtained. iv. b. Two different snap shots of the meter reading before and after commissioning during the day and snap shots of the plant from various angles. c. A certificate issued by a Committee authorized by NVVN stating the date of commissioning. iii. Additionally, data on generation of the plant on the day of the commissioning may be obtained. iv. As this Committee was constituted on 28th February 2012, as a one-time measure for the projects which were commissioned/connected prior to visit of the Committee, the Committee may satisfy itself based on record available and obtain affidavit from the developer to satisfy the above." 41. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in , (2017) 9 SCC 641 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broader principles, which emerged from the precedent law on the subject of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid special emphasis on paras 16.2, 16.7 and 16.8 of the said judgment. Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under:- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 42. Learned counsel further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in , (2014) 10 SCC 663 , wherein the concept of civil liability has been embarked upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 43. Learned counsel have also placed reliance upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in,2018 SCCOnline(SC) 2447, relevant portion of which reads as under:- "13. Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the petition for quashing of FIR was untenable since the proceedings have gone past the stage of FIR and have resulted in a charge sheet. 14. Shri Sanjiv Sen, vehemently submitted that the charge under Section 406 against the Appellant No.1 arises from the fact that the Appellant No.1 has fraudulently transferred the property which is the subject matter of the development agreement dated 03.06.1993 to his wife i.e Appellant No.2. 15. Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Respondent No.1 i.e. State government of NCT, places reliance on the charge sheet to submit that the Appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 406 by not returning the amount of Rs. One Crore advanced by the Respondent No.2. Conclusion 16. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. One Crore advanced by the Respondent No.2. Conclusion 16. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat2. In the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra), this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the 482 petition, observed: - "16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not." 44. Learned counsel for the NTPC submitted that the Government of India launched Jawahar Lal Nehru National Solar Mission with an objective to establish India as a global leader in Solar Energy, and in pursuit to the said objective, the NTPC-NVVN was designated as a Nodal Agency through the Presidential directives by the Ministry of Power, Government of India for the first phase from 2009 to 2013. The invitations for such selection were made for setting up Solar Power Plant of 5 Megawatt capacity, and thereafter, the PPA was signed by the parties on 10.01.2011 with the commissioning date of the project stipulated as 09.01.2012. Total 12 projects out of 20 projects were to be commissioned and the petitioner's project was one of them. 45. Learned counsel for the NTPC further submitted that the clarification was sought from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India regarding the definition of the term 'commissioning'. Thereafter, after ascertaining all the material available on record and taking into consideration the definition and clarification issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India vide its letter dated 22.03.2012, the Power Plant was declared commissioned on 28.01.2012. 46. Thereafter, after ascertaining all the material available on record and taking into consideration the definition and clarification issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India vide its letter dated 22.03.2012, the Power Plant was declared commissioned on 28.01.2012. 46. Learned counsel for the NTPC also stated that the petitioners were imposed with the penalty of payment of liquidated damages in terms of Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA and the Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,45,13,000/-, which was 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee, was recovered from the total Performance Bank Guarantee so furnished by the petitioners before the NTPC-NVVN. 47. Learned counsel for the NTPC has further stated that there was no prescribed format for the purpose of issuing the commissioning certificate, and therefore, the commissioning report was as per the assessment made by the NTPC, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India. 48. Learned counsel for the NTPC also submitted that the aforementioned declaration regarding commissioning of Solar PV Projects on different parameters was merely an irregularity and not an illegality. The said irregularity as per learned counsel for the NTPC had occurred in the absence of clear guidelines and definition of the term 'commissioning'. 49. The following portion is taken from the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner to the reply/submission filed by the respondent No.1-State, and the same also reflects the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the NTPC: "4. . . . . . . the said report also supports the case of the petitioner where it concludes by stating that declaring the commissioning of the Solar PV projects on different parameters were mere 'irregularity' which occurred in absence of clear guidelines and definition of the term 'commissioning'. .. that there is not even a whisper of any illegality in the commissioning declared by the commissioning committee in respect of the named projecting including that of the Company in the said report. . . . . 6. . . . . . . that it is further pertinent to note that as per clause 4.6.1 of the PPA, levy of liquidated damage is attracted when the Company fails to commence supply of power and make the Contracted Capacity available for dispatch by the Scheduled Commissioning Date and is not avoided merely by commissioning of the project. 6. . . . . . . that it is further pertinent to note that as per clause 4.6.1 of the PPA, levy of liquidated damage is attracted when the Company fails to commence supply of power and make the Contracted Capacity available for dispatch by the Scheduled Commissioning Date and is not avoided merely by commissioning of the project. that thus the contention of the State that there was a conspiracy in respect of preparation of a false and fabricated commissioning report or a false or fabricated commissioning report was prepared with the intention to save the Company from the imposition of heavy penalty is completely incorrect and vitiated. 7. that as per the Company there was no delay in commissioning of the Project and the penalty of 20% bank guarantee was levied pursuant to the introduction of new definition of Commissioning by MNRE and Company has surrendered 20% bank guarantee under protest to the Respondent No.2 (NTPS-NVNN) reserving its rights to claim the same. Further, .. that it is incorrect to state that the Company is liable to pay penalty towards 40% of bank guarantee as alleged in the reply of the State. that assuming but not admitting the date of commissioning ascertained by the Expert Committee, NTPC to be correct even then the Company is not liable to pay any sum towards 40% bank guarantee since the same can be levied in the event of a delay of more than 1 month (30 days) whereas the alleged delay as per the Expert Committee, NTPC is for 19 days." 50. Learned counsel for the NTPC thus, summarized that the complete chain of events had happened strictly in accordance with the PPA, and thus, no loss was being caused to NTPC NVVN as 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee was invoked in accordance with the Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA. 51. Learned counsel for the NTPC thus, summarized that the complete chain of events had happened strictly in accordance with the PPA, and thus, no loss was being caused to NTPC NVVN as 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee was invoked in accordance with the Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA. 51. Thus, learned counsel for the NTPC submitted that it is clear from the stand of the NTPC that even if the date of commissioning of the Plant was 09.01.2012, then also the Company was liable to pay a penalty of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee in the form of encashment thereof to that extent by the NTPC-NVVN, in pursuance of the definition of the term 'commissioning' issued and clarified by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, as aforementioned, and thus, the penalty would not have changed if the Power Plant was started operating on 10.01.2012 or 28.01.2012. 52. Contrario sensu, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the NTPC, while submitting that the definition of the term 'Commercial Operation Date' would mean the actual commissioning date of respective units of the Power Project, whereupon the SPD starts injecting power from the Power Project to the Delivery Point. The Contracted Capacity, as per learned Public Prosecutor, was to mean 5 Megawatt contracted with NVVN for supply by the SPD to NVVN-NTPC Vidhyut Vyapar Nigam Limited at the Delivery Point from the Solar Power Project. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the commissioning date of the Power Plant, in the present case, was 09.01.2012, and the Performance Bank Guarantee could have been invoked in violation of the same. 53. Learned Public Prosecutor however, submitted that the aforementioned commissioning certificate so issued was to protect the petitioners from the penalty accruing on commissioning after the Scheduled Commissioning Date i.e. 09.01.2012, and therefore, it was a clear fraud upon the system. 54. Learned Public Prosecutor has also produced before this Court the investigation report, which is taken on record. 55. 53. Learned Public Prosecutor however, submitted that the aforementioned commissioning certificate so issued was to protect the petitioners from the penalty accruing on commissioning after the Scheduled Commissioning Date i.e. 09.01.2012, and therefore, it was a clear fraud upon the system. 54. Learned Public Prosecutor has also produced before this Court the investigation report, which is taken on record. 55. The aforesaid investigation report clearly indicates that on 10.01.2012, the commissioning was not in totality as on the said date, the Power Plant has not achieved its full capacity, and therefore, the petitioners had made an effort to escape the invocation of the Performance Bank Guarantee in accordance with Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA, by producing a manipulated certificate, as mentioned above, certifying completion of the Project on 09.01.2012. 56. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that in all the seven solar stations, on the so called commissioning date of 09.01.2012, the full scale production was not started, and thus, it could not be rendered as a Commercial Operation Date. 57. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the whole endeavour of the Companies was to escape the invocation of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee on account of the delay of less than 30 days, in accordance with Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA. 58. The gist of the aforementioned investigation/status report is as follows: {Construction & Development of the Project:- The commencement of supply of power up to the contracted capacity to NVVN no later than the Scheduled Commissioning Date and Continuance of the supply of power throughout the term of the Agreement.} 59. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, including the aforementioned investigation report, alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the parties were having a contractual relationship arising out of the PPA drawn on 10.01.2011, and thus, the parties were under the contractual obligation arising out of such Agreement. 60. This Court has seen the PPA, which required the petitioners to establish a Solar Power Project based on the advanced technology of 5 Megawatt capacity at the Village Level to be commissioned on 09.01.2012, the commissioning date as stipulated in the PPA. 61. 60. This Court has seen the PPA, which required the petitioners to establish a Solar Power Project based on the advanced technology of 5 Megawatt capacity at the Village Level to be commissioned on 09.01.2012, the commissioning date as stipulated in the PPA. 61. This Court also finds that the term 'Commercial Operation Date' is defined in the PPA to mean the actual commissioning date of respective units of the Power Project, whereupon the SPD starts injecting power from the Power Project to the Delivery Point. 62. This Court has also seen that there is no definition of the term 'commissioning' in the PPA, and thus, the said term 'commissioning' might itself have numerous interpretations, in terms of its acceptability to the parties concerned. However, the damages for the delay in commencement of supply of the power to NVVN has been dealt with in Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA, whereby the penalty of encashment of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee for a delay upto one month is clearly envisaged as a penal consequence of the delay in commissioning of the Project. 63. Even if it is admitted that the Commercial Operation Date started from 10.01.2012, then also it would entitle the NTPC-NVVN to invoke encashment of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee, which has been clearly done vide order dated 22.03.2012, much before lodging of the present FIR i.e. 26.12.2012. 64. This Court also finds that Article 16 of the PPA carries a clear dispute resolution clause, which could have been invoked in case of any contractual failure. 65. This Court has also seen the Commissioning Report dated 10.01.2012 alongwith certificate of commissioning dated 16.01.2012 pertaining to the Solar Power Plant, whereby the Power Plant had been certified to have been commissioned on 09.01.2012, which is merely referring to the connectivity and the details of Solar Station (Transformer, Inverter, Modules and Switchgear), and the same did not refer to a particular definition of the term 'commissioning'. 66. 66. It is peculiar to notice that the term 'commissioning' itself was under the continuous contemplation by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, as mentioned in Annexure-9 dated 24.2.2012, in which the Ministry has given the definition of the term 'commissioning', which was further reviewed by the said Ministry vide Minutes of the Meeting of the Review Committee Related to Grid Connected Solar Power Projects under Phase-I of the Jawahar Lal Nehru National Solar Mission dated 19.03.2012, which suggested that the definition of the term 'commissioning' does not include 'performance monitoring'. 67. This Court has also seen that the ultimate implementation was of the letter dated 05.07.2012 issued by the NTPC-NVVN, whereby the commissioning date of the Project was ascertained as 28.01.2012, in accordance with the material available on record. 68. This Court has further seen that the NTPC has taken a categorical stand that for all practical purposes, the relevant Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA has been invoked, and thus, on account of the delay caused in commissioning of the Project i.e. from 09.01.2012 to 28.01.2012, the petitioner-Company has been penalized with the invocation of the encashment of 20% of the total Performance Bank Guarantee so furnished by it before the NTPC-NVVN. 69. Thus, it is clear that the NTPC-NVVN has acted upon the terms of the PPA strictly in accordance with law, and no loss has been caused to the State Exchequer whatsoever. 70. This Court has also taken note of the fact that even if the aforesaid report dated 10.01.2012 was not correct, then also the officers concerned cannot be blamed for it, as the definition of the term 'commissioning' of the Power Plant itself was undergoing lot of changes. Moreover, as worked out in a meeting of the Review Committee constituted by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India held on 08.02.2012, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India itself vide Annexure-9 dated 24.02.2012 has issued and clarified the definition of the term 'commissioning', which provides a definition to the term 'commissioning'. The definition of the term 'commissioning' was further reviewed by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, and a new definition was given only on 19.03.2012, which indicates that the definition itself was not available to the parties, which could make them liable for a right or wrong certification of commissioning. The definition of the term 'commissioning' was further reviewed by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, and a new definition was given only on 19.03.2012, which indicates that the definition itself was not available to the parties, which could make them liable for a right or wrong certification of commissioning. 71. This Court further finds that the term 'commissioning' has not been defined under the PPA, and thus, the said term was a subjective word, which was utilized by the authorities concerned, while issuing the aforesaid certificate certifying commissioning of the Project on 09.01.2012, which was of course not accepted by the Nodal Agency i.e. NTPC-NVVN. Thereafter, after assessment thereof, the same was implemented finally, while deriving the conclusion to the effect of ascertainment of the date of commissioning of the Power Plant as 28.01.2012. Such derivement of the final assessment was done, after taking into account the definitions issued and clarified by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, and thus, the said date of commissioning of the Project could be ascertained only on 05.07.2012. 72. The present FIR has been lodged on 26.12.2012, which was much subsequent to the action completed by all the parties, including invocation of the penalty Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA, as indicated hereinabove. 73. The stand of the NTPC has further clarified the whole situation, as the NTPC-NVVN, which was directly the Nodal Agency under the National Solar Mission of the Government of India, and the contractual partner in the matter, has in fact categorically stated that the declaration of commissioning of Solar Power Project on different parameters was a mere irregularity and not an illegality, and the said irregularity has occurred in absence of clear guidelines and definition of the term 'commissioning'. Thus, the clinching effect of the stand so taken by the NTPC in the present case is that the impugned FIR itself, which allegedly was registered so as to constitute a criminal offence, goes away. 74. The NTPC has further clarified that Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA has been invoked so to levy the liquidate damages, as attracted to the Company, which failed to commence with the supply of power by the stipulated date i.e. 09.01.2012. 74. The NTPC has further clarified that Clause 4.6.1 of the PPA has been invoked so to levy the liquidate damages, as attracted to the Company, which failed to commence with the supply of power by the stipulated date i.e. 09.01.2012. The Scheduled Commissioning Date was finalized by the NTPC (as the main authority) as 28.01.2012, after deliberating upon the definition issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India and other materials that were available on record. 75. Once the NTPC itself has taken a categorical stand that issuance of the commissioning certificate in question is a mere irregularity and not an illegality, then to saddle the petitioners with a criminal liability shall be unjust, in light of the precedent law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that in Section 482 Cr.P.C., the courts have to distinguish from serious offences, which have an overwhelming and a predominant element of a civil dispute. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also laid down the law that the criminal cases involving offences, which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour, may in appropriate situations, fall for quashing, where the parties concerned have settled the dispute. 76. Admittedly, in the present case, the NTPCNVVN and the present petitioners are the only parties to the contract, which in the present FIR, is said to have been violated. However, as per the stand of the NTPC, the same is not termed as an illegality, but merely as an irregularity. 77. This Court further finds that the learned Public Prosecutor has failed to satisfy this Court as to what was the component of culpability in the allegations so levelled, as the same have also not pinpointed the intention of coming out with the assessment as to the date of commissioning of the Project i.e. 09.01.2012, which would render the starting of the plant from 10.01.2012. Thus, the said assessment would also attract the same penalty of encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee to the extent of 20% thereof, which has already been invoked in the present case. 78. Thus, the said assessment would also attract the same penalty of encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee to the extent of 20% thereof, which has already been invoked in the present case. 78. Learned Public Prosecutor has miserably failed to point out even a single component attracting the criminal culpability on the part of the petitioners, as the whole relationship between the petitioners and the NTPC-NVVN was contractual in nature, and any kind of deviation from the terms and conditions of the PPA, would have a dispute resolution system, which could have been resorted to by the parties concerned, in case any dispute arises. However, the stand of the NTPC makes it clear that there is no dispute between the parties and the ascertained date of commissioning of the Project i.e. 28.01.2012, has been accepted, after taking into account the guidelines issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India. 79. The doubtful proposition of the definition of the term 'commissioning', which is not there in the PPA, also required the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India to continue with the contemplation in relation thereto. Thus, without any definite definition of the term 'commissioning', the case, so as to saddle the petitioners with the criminal liability, on account of certification of commissioning of the Project on 09.01.2012, cannot be established; unless and until there is a definite answer to the term 'commissioning' and a definite deviation from the date thereof. However, the stand of the NTPC has provided a clear answer to the alleged declaration and certification pertaining to the date of commissioning of the Project, while terming the same as a mere irregularity and not an illegality, thereby providing a clear answer to the whole riddle pertaining to the culpability arising out of the facts narrated in the FIR. 80. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR No.532 dated 26.12.2012 pending investigation at Police Station CPS ACB, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed." 20. This Court has taken note of the fact that the stand taken by the NTPC in Sanjay Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) is relevant for the determination of the present issue as well. 21. This Court has taken note of the fact that the stand taken by the NTPC in Sanjay Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) is relevant for the determination of the present issue as well. 21. Apart from the reasons furnished at length by this Court in the aforequoted judgment, this Court has also taken into account the fact that the present petitioners were in fact not the appropriate authority to give the Commissioning Certificate, but were required to give a limited projection of the commissioning to the extent of generator and to the extent of details of the solar inverter, location etc. This Court has further taken note of the fact that the Transformer, Inverter, Modules and Switchgear installed in the Plant was actually not commissioning, but they were merely doing their job without taking into account the definition of the term 'commissioning', which came subsequently vide the document dated 28.01.2012, whereby the definition issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India and other material were brought on record. 22. In light of the aforequoted judgment and the aforesaid observations, the present misc. petitions are allowed in the same lines and FIR No.532/12 dated 26.12.2012 of Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur of the offences under Sections 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 420 & 120-B IPC, alongwith entire proceedings pursuant thereto, is hereby quashed.