ORDER : 1. Petitioners in the above said writ petitions have called in question the registration of FIR by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Chikkaballapura District, in Crime No.4/2016 dated 16.09.2016. 2. The brief factual matrix of the case necessary for disposal of these petitions are that, on the basis of the order passed by the Upa-Lokayuktha and in pursuance of issuance of search warrant, the Lokayuktha police have raided a place i.e., RTO Check Post situated at Bagepalli in Chikkaballapur District. In the presence of panch witnesses, they have conducted search of the said check post and found that, the petitioners by names Varadaraju G., R.S.Kumar and Srinath were present in that particular place. On the basis of the allegations that the persons who were working in the said check post were collecting illegal gratification from the drivers of different vehicles, it appears the said check was made by the Lokayuktha police. At the time of raid, they found that those three persons were present and one Srinath had told that a driver of a lorry had come to him and paid an amount of Rs.3,000/. 3. During the course of search, the RTO Inspector found that, Srinath was having Rs.52,420/- in his pocket, which was not properly accounted. Another person by name Varadaraju was found with an amount of Rs.41,500/-. The said amounts were against the amount which they had declared when they entered into the said check post. Therefore, the Lokayuktha Police found that these amounts must have been received as bribe by these persons and as such they have submitted a search report. On the basis of the said search report, FIR has been registered by the ACB, Chikkaballapur District. 4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.S.Bhagwat, neither in the search warrant nor in the search report or the mahajar drawn by the Lokayukta police, there is any mention of the name of petitioner in W.P.No.527036 i.e., Venugopal Reddy. M and it is only the names of Varadaraju, Srinath and R.S.Kumar who are petitioners in W.P.Nos.51313-315/2016 are mentioned in the search report showing seizing of the amounts from their custody. 5. M and it is only the names of Varadaraju, Srinath and R.S.Kumar who are petitioners in W.P.Nos.51313-315/2016 are mentioned in the search report showing seizing of the amounts from their custody. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, submitted before the Court that, investigation cannot be stalled and investigation has to be conducted by the ACB in order to ascertain the truth or facility of the allegations made in the FIR. But, I am afraid to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that, FIR is based on the search report submitted by the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta. Therefore, there was an ample opportunity to the ACB police to cross-verify whether there was any semblance of material/allegation in the search report in order to implicate the petitioner (Venugopal Reddy. M) in the FIR. If the answer is in the negative, the investigating officer should not have registered the case against the said person against whom no semblance of materials are there as on the date of filing of the FIR. 6. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that, registration of FIR so far as petitioner in W.P.No.52703/2016 i.e., Mr. Venugopal Reddy. M. is concerned, is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. However, there is material to show that in the search report there is mention of names of petitioners in W.P.Nos.51313-315/2016. Therefore, the investigation cannot be quashed so far as these persons are concerned. Truth or facility of the allegations made against them with reference to the search report has to be investigated by the respondent – Police. Therefore, petitions filed by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.51313-315/2016 are liable to dismissed. Other grounds urged before this Court with regard to the registration of FIR by the ACB and the alibi pleaded by the petitioners do not survive for consideration in this case. It is also further made it clear that petitioners in W.P.Nos.51313-315/2016, after investigation by the ACB police, if any adverse report is submitted against them without any basis, they are at liberty to approach this Court, if advised. 8. Under the above said circumstances, following order is passed. ORDER Petition in W.P.No.52703/2016 is hereby allowed. Consequently, registration of FIR and further investigation so far as petitioner in this writ petition is concerned in Crime No.4/2016 is hereby quashed. 8. Under the above said circumstances, following order is passed. ORDER Petition in W.P.No.52703/2016 is hereby allowed. Consequently, registration of FIR and further investigation so far as petitioner in this writ petition is concerned in Crime No.4/2016 is hereby quashed. However, in the course of investigation, if the police find that this person is also involved, then only, they are at liberty to array this petitioner as accused. Petitions in W.P.Nos.51313-315/2016 are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners, as noted in the body of this order.