JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the counsel for respondent. 2. The petitioner in this petition challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings without registration of FIR and sought the relief of quashing the FIR registered against accused No. 1 in Crime No. 4/2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(D), (I) (III), 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act 1988 and pass such other orders as this Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner in the petition contended that the respondent Lokayukta police have conducted a search on 23.8.2016 of the RTO Check post at Hagari, Bllary taluk, at around 5.00 a.m. in the presence of two witnesses. During that time, accused No. 1 H.A. Iqbal, who is the petitioner herein and accused No. 3-Shabir Pasha were present. The police have found Rs. 510/- in the possession of accused No. 2 and Rs. 7,000/- in the Table drawer of accused No. 1. On verification, it was found that a sum of Rs. 47,804/- was collected towards tax. When it is verified in the almariah, there was a short of Rs. 3,004/- and thereafter, accused No. 1 has brought Rs. 3,000/- from an outsider and the same was seized. Since there was no explanation for the unauthorized amount of Rs. 11,600/- which was collected from the lorry owners were seized. Based on the same, Mahazar was conducted and the crime was registered in Crime No. 4/2016. It is contended that since search and seizure was conducted without registration of the FIR, the entire proceedings adopted by the police is contrary to law and law laid down by the Apex Court. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the very registration of the case against this petitioner is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , without registering the FIR, the Lokayukta Police cannot conduct the search and seizure and procedure adopted by the respondent is illegal and based on the same, prosecution against the petitioner is not sustainable and prayed this Court to quash the proceedings. 5. 5. Petitioner's counsel in his argument reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and also in support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and contended that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation and the same is the general rule and must be strictly complied with. However, it is observed that where information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court in the judgment held that a compulsory registration of earliest information as FIR twofold objective Criminal process is set in motion and is well documented from very start preventing embellishments later Ensures Transparency in the criminal justice delivery system and functioning of police, providing for an efficient means to check powers of police as also for judicial oversight of the same. 6. The petitioner counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Girishandra vs. State of Lokayukta, (2013) ILR (Kar) 983. The High Court in this judgment held that in trap cases, the question of surprise raid is not conceivable and tenable unlike investigation in the case of offence relating to assets which are disproportionate to known source of income. The method of surprise raid is totally impertinent and irrelevant in a trap case. Otherwise, the investigating officers would become arbitrary and could create unwarranted commotional atmosphere in the public offices and further held that there is no complaint from the person giving legal gratification. No evidence is conceivable regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. The mere possession of the money in the hands of document writers would not suggest or substantiate the offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Sub-Register and the officials of the office of the Sub-Registrar. 7. The counsel also relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in between Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC Online (SC) 2447. 7. The counsel also relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in between Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC Online (SC) 2447. The counsel brought to my notice para 18 regarding the exercising of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in this judgment it is held that there is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is the settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. even when the discharge application is pending with the trial Court. Indeed, it would be travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against the person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any Court. 8. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent in his argument vehemently contended that only in case of cognizable offence is committed, it is mandatory on the part of the respondent police to register the FIR and in the case on hand, only information was received through the higher authorities and based on that, it requires the preliminary enquiry in order to set the law in motion and hence, search and seizure was conducted and thereafter, FIR was registered and there is no any lacuna in the eye of law. Hence, the very contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in between Chandrashekhar Eligar vs. State by Lokayuktha Police, (2017) 3 Laws (Kar) 52 and brought to my notice para 13 of the judgment. In the said para this Court has held that 'in the FIR, it also mentioned that after reaching that particular spot, the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta has intercepted the said vehicle and found Rs. In the said para this Court has held that 'in the FIR, it also mentioned that after reaching that particular spot, the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta has intercepted the said vehicle and found Rs. 36,85,500/- in the said vehicle and he inquired the accused petitioner who was in the said vehicle with regard to the possession of huge amount as he has not given any satisfactory answer, then only, the said Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the said money is being transported either for any illegal activity or it amounts to an amount unexplained with a public servant and therefore, without giving any opportunity to the accused to escape from the said place and without allowing the said person to escape from the clutches of the police along with the money, Inquiring Officer has to take possession of the said money and the accused. Perhaps he might have felt that without there being a record, he cannot seize or take the custody of the vehicle. Therefore, for that reasons, he has drawn up a mahazar and taken the custody of the money and the vehicle and immediately without any delay he went to the Lokayukta Police and lodged the FIR. 9. By relying on this observation, the respondent's counsel contends that without registration of the FIR, a search and seizure was conducted in the case on hand. The counsel appearing for respondent also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court passed in Crl. Pet. No. 101438/2016 and brought to my notice para 27 of judgment. This Court has observed in the said para that the allegations made in the report submitted by the Lokayukta police discloses that they have made allegations that the petitioners have not given any account for the amount found with the petitioners. Therefore, they only suspected that the petitioners might have committed the offence u/s. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. This Court has observed in the said para that the allegations made in the report submitted by the Lokayukta police discloses that they have made allegations that the petitioners have not given any account for the amount found with the petitioners. Therefore, they only suspected that the petitioners might have committed the offence u/s. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. In order to attract Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, if a person by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other persons any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; that itself is sufficient to attract the provisions. The ACB police have to examine that whether Rs. 1,590/- obtained by the accused persons by corrupt or illegal means for themselves or for any other persons, while exercising their duty as public servants, for their beneficiary advantage without any public interest. Here, the question of demand and acceptance does not arise in order to attract Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. However, it has to be tested by the investigating Officer whether any corrupt act or illegal act has been done by the accused persons. Of course, mere recovery of a money form the custody of a person that itself is not sufficient to hold that he has received that amount by corrupt or illegal means. It has to be explained by him as to how he acquired the said money, valuable thing for beneficiary advantage." 10. The respondent's counsel also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court passed in Crl. Pet. Nos. 7053/2013 connected with 5821/2013 and brought to my notice that this Court has distinguished the case of Lokayukta and held that 'even assuming that there has been a lapse in following the mandatory procedure before lodging the FIR, it would not result in the entire proceedings being vitiated but may have a bearing on the value of the alleged incriminating material collected pursuant to a faulty investigation, which it would be for the trial court to consider. And it would also before the trial Court to examine the admissibility or otherwise of the evidence which is said to have been obtained pursuant to a faulty investigation and further observed that the petition does not merit consideration and dismissed the petition. 11. After hearing the arguments of petitioner's counsel and also the respondent's counsel let me appreciate the factual aspects of the case, whether this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as sought. 12. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case, the document which has been referred as Annexure-A, in the complaint filed by the Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta, it is mentioned that the Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta had made a note dated 27.8.2016 and ADGP letter dated 3.9.2016 and also Registrar note dated 8.9.2016 and referring those documents, it is mentioned in the complaint that he has mentioned that Upalokayukta had given instruction to the Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta, Mysore Division that in National Highway-63, to make the search by issuing search warrant and accordingly on 23.8.2016 a raid was conducted in the early morning at 5.00am. in the presence of two witnesses. Accused No. 1 and 3 were present at that time and search warrant was given to them and conducted search and found the unaccounted money to the tune of Rs. 11,610/- and hence, the complaint was given on 19.9.2016 and based on the complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioner. 13. On perusal of this complaint, it is clear that search warrant was issued and there was some information that illegal activities are going in Guntkal N.H.63 and hence, search warrant was issued and thereafter, search and seizure was conducted. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that without registering the FIR, the Inspector ought not to have conducted any search and seizure and no doubt the Apex Court in the principles laid down in the Lalita Kumari case has held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if information discloses commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. The other judgment referred by the petitioner also says a very same principles and having considered the factual aspects of the case is concerned, the question arise before this Court is whether any information discloses commission of cognizable offence and in the case on hand, only an information is received regarding misusing of official capacity and there was no any information disclosing of commission of cognizable offence. There is no any complaint and only information regarding misusing of the public office and hence, the search was conducted only in order to make a preliminary enquiry which is permissible before registration of the FIR. This Court also in the judgment referred in Chandrashekhar Eligar case and other two cases has categorically held that the enquiry officer has to come to the conclusion that the said money is being transported either of any illegal activity or it amounts to an amount unexplained. Then a mahazar was drawn up and taken the custody of the money and in the case on hand also, the search was made on the information of misusing of the public office and found an unaccounted money of Rs. 11,610/- and further allegation made in the complaint that there was a short of Rs. 3,004/- and thereafter, accused No. 1 has brought Rs. 3,000/- from an outsider and the same was collected. Since there was no explanation for the unauthorized amount of Rs. 11,600/- which was collected from the lorry drivers and cleaners were seized. Hence, search and seizure was conducted and case has been registered. I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the respondent ought to have been registered the FIR, which is mandatory and then conducted other procedures and the complaint is very specific that only on information of misusing of public office went to spot and conducted the search and seizure and there was no any information of cognizable offence before conducting of the search and seizure and only on information and judgment of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari case also very clear that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if the information disclose the commission of cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such situation. 14. 14. Having regard to the information which has been received in the present case on hand, only with regard to misusing of the public office and it is further observed in the judgment of the Lalita Kumari case, if no information disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether cognizable offence committed or not and in the case on hand also, there was no any information about the offence of cognizable offence has taken place. The Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case further held in compulsory registration of earliest information as FIR is twofold objective. Criminal process is set in motion and is well documented from very start preventing embellishments later. Ensures transparency in the criminal justice system and functioning of police, providing for an efficient means to check powers of police as also for judicial oversight of the same. 15. The principles laid down in the judgment is very clear and this Court also distinguished the same in the cases referred by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and having considered the factual aspects of this case and also the contention of the petitioner's counsel, I do not find any force in the arguments of the petitioner's counsel that in the absence of FIR, Lokayukta police ought not to have conducted the search and seizer and it is only a information and there was no any definite information of cognizable offence has taken place. It is clear that where the information received and does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted to ascertain with regard to the cognizable offence is discloses or not and in the case on hand also, only on the information search and seizure made and Mahazar conducted and found the unaccounted money which has not been explained properly and hence, the initiation of proceeding against the petitioner after conducting the search Mahazer and registration of FIR against him not suffers from any illegality. The other contention that there is no any demand and acceptance and hence the case ought not to have been initiated proceedings against the petitioner cannot be accepted and it is not the case of demand and acceptance and an allegation is misusing of the public office and found the money which is unaccounted and no explanation from the petitioner to the unaccounted money which was found and hence the contention that without registering the FIR there cannot be any proceedings cannot be accepted. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.