ORDER : The petitioner herein, who is an accused in ACB Ballari Crime No.10/2018, is seeking quashing of the registration of FIR by the said establishment for offences punishable under section 7(a) and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts are that one K. Pampapathi lodged a complaint before the ACB, Ballari on 15.11.2018 alleging that the petitioner, who is the Sub-Registrar of Hospet was indulging in corrupt activities and he was obtaining illegal gratification directly and through various middlemen including the staff working in his office and deed writers, for registering documents, issuing encumbrance certificates and for performing other official duties. After registering the said case and obtaining search warrant from the jurisdictional Special Judge, a unit of the ACB Ballari conducted search operation in the office of the petitioner and during the same, it is stated that a sum of Rs.2,95,048/-was recovered from various persons including the staff and deed writers etc., who were present in the premises of the office of the Sub-Registrar at Hospet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has nothing whatsoever to do with the office of the petitioner and he had not gone there to secure any documents from the said office or to register any document there and he was a busybody and a complaint at his instance should not have been entertained by the ACB at all. He submitted that during the raid and search, no amount whatsoever was recovered from the petitioner and in fact on his personal search, he was found only with a cash of Rs.50/-, which shows that he was an honest person. He further submitted that insofar as recovery of Rs.2,95,048/-from various persons who are either the employees of the establishment or deed writers is concerned, the said employees and the deed writers had given proper explanation for they being in possession of the money. He further submitted that insofar as recovery of Rs.2,95,048/-from various persons who are either the employees of the establishment or deed writers is concerned, the said employees and the deed writers had given proper explanation for they being in possession of the money. He also contended that the ACB Police have misused their power and in such misuse of power, they had registered a case and conducted raid and if case is proceeded with further against the petitioner herein, it will destroy morale of an honest official working for the government and that will amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore, this is a fit case for quashing the FIR. 4. In this behalf, he placed reliance on several decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in particular, he has placed considerable stress on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others reported in 2021 (1) SCC 1 at para No.121. He therefore submitted that this Court should exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner for quashing the entire proceedings. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Santosh Malagoudar appearing for the ACB, who is respondent herein, per contra, submitted that officials of the establishment of the ACB, Ballari unit, on the complainant lodging a complaint which disclosed commission of serious offences under the Act, registered a case and thereafter they obtained search warrant from the competent Court and conducted raid and search operation in the premises of office of the petitioner in the presence of panchas. He submitted that during the same, a cash of Rs.2,95,048/-was recovered from various officials working in the said Office and deed writers operating therein and since they could not offer satisfactory explanation for the same, a panchanama was prepared and further investigation has been taken up. He further submitted that there is reasonable ground to believe that petitioner was indulging in corrupt practices directly and through his office staff and deed writers and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2013 SC 847 (State of Rajasthan vs. Dr.Rajkumar Agarwal and another) requested this Court to reject the petition. 6. 6. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been recently explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Amish Devgan’s (supra). Para 121 of the said decision is relevant for our purpose and it reads as under: “121. We are conscious and aware of the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and the earlier decision in R.P. Kapur which held that the High Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, can quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure ends of justice. These could be cases where, manifestly, there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the prosecution or the proceedings, such as due to requirement of prior sanction; or where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; or where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence; or where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Another qualifying category in cases where charge-sheet is filed would be those where allegations against the accused do constitute the offence alleged, but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Application of these principles depends on factual matrix of each case. Strict and restricted as the requirements are, they are at this stage not satisfied in the present case.” 7. Similarly, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at Para No.9 and 10 in the decision reported in AIR 2013 SC 847 (State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal and another) is also very relevant for present purpose and it reads as under: “9. There is yet another and a very sound reason why we are unable to quash the instant FIR. …… However, this court added that the plentitude of the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. There is yet another and a very sound reason why we are unable to quash the instant FIR. …… However, this court added that the plentitude of the power under Section 482 of the Code by itself makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. We feel that in the instant case, the High Court failed to appreciate that the wholesome power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with circumspection and very sparingly. It is not possible for us, on the facts of this case, to come to a conclusion that no offence is made out at all against respondent 1 and continuance of proceedings would be abuse of the process of court. 10. Mr. Shishodia submitted that respondent 1 is on the verge of retirement. He has suffered the agony of investigation since 2007 and therefore, this court may take a kindly view of the matter. Rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. People, particularly those holding high office, are frequently seen accepting illegal gratification. In such serious cases showing mercy at this stage may send wrong signals. We are, therefore, unable to accede to Mr. Shishodia’s request.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the background of the above construction placed on the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the registration of the case, search operation conducted, money recovered and the panchanama prepared has to be examined to find out whether there is a case made out for quashing of the proceedings pursuant to the registration of Crime No.10/2018 of ACB, Ballari. 9. Section 7(a) and 7(A) of the Act, insofar as same is relevant for the present purpose, reads as follows: “7. 9. Section 7(a) and 7(A) of the Act, insofar as same is relevant for the present purpose, reads as follows: “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed – Any public servant who, - (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b) xxxx (c) xxxx shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1. – For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration.-xxxx Explanation 2.-For the purpose of this section, - (i) xxxx (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party. 7-A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence. – Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner shows that one K. Pampapathi, a retired employee of Commercial Tax Department, had lodged the complaint before the ACB, Ballari (respondent No.2) on 15.11.2018 which reads as follows: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 11. A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner shows that one K. Pampapathi, a retired employee of Commercial Tax Department, had lodged the complaint before the ACB, Ballari (respondent No.2) on 15.11.2018 which reads as follows: IN OTHER LANGUAGE 11. The gist of the complaint as appearing from the above is that the accused-petitioner was obtaining illegal gratification and he was also collecting the same on percentage basis through his subordinates and private middlemen including deed writers working and operating in the premises of the office of the Sub-Registrar at Hospet for registering documents and performance of other official duties. The case was registered on 15.11.2018 on the basis of the said complaint for offences under Section 7(a) and 7(A) of the Act. 12. A plain reading of above sections make it clear that the complaint made before the ACB, Ballari precisely cover the allegation that accused-petitioner directly and through middlemen was obtaining or accepting undue advantage which exactly is the gravamen of the offence as defined under Section 7(a), Explanation 2 (ii) of the Act. Similarly, it cannot be stated that the allegations also do not cover the offence under Section 7(A) of the Act. 13. Thus, the complaint dated 15.11.2018 makes out a prima facie case for the registration of the offence under Section 7(a) and 7(A) of the Act and accordingly, the ACB Ballari has registered the case. Offences registered are cognizable. It is only after registration of the case that the respondent No.1 has proceeded to obtain search warrant from the learned Special Judge, Hospet. After obtaining such search warrant, the raid operation was conducted on 16.11.2018 at 4.30 p.m., which continued upto 3.00 a.m. on 17.11.2018. A perusal of the search panchanama shows that the Investigation Officer had held personal search not only on the petitioner herein but also on as many as 14 persons including the subordinate staff members working in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hospet and also the deed writers and contractual employees working therein. During the same, Investigation Officer has recovered and seized a sum of Rs.2,95,048/-and the explanations offered by them was not found satisfactory. He has also prepared a list of persons who were present in the premises obviously for their work in the said office. The detailed investigation is yet to be held. 14. During the same, Investigation Officer has recovered and seized a sum of Rs.2,95,048/-and the explanations offered by them was not found satisfactory. He has also prepared a list of persons who were present in the premises obviously for their work in the said office. The detailed investigation is yet to be held. 14. It is already noticed that allegations in the complaint prima facie make out ingredients of the offence under Section 7(a) and 7(A) of the Act. There is no procedural infirmity in the registration of the case or holding raid and search proceedings. After obtaining search warrant from the competent court, Investigation Officer has held the search proceedings between 4.30 p.m. on 16.11.2018 and 3.00 a.m. on 17.11.2018. Panchas were associated with the search proceedings. During the same, he recovered a sum of Rs.2,95,048/-from various persons including subordinate staff working in the office and various deed writers operating in the premises and there was reasonable ground to believe that money recovered was collected by such persons at the behest of the petitioner herein and petitioner herein was collecting the same on percentage basis. 15. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Courts cannot be oblivious of the fact that a scenario of pervasive culture of corruption is prevailing in the country. Registration and holding of investigation in these class of cases seldom require custodial interrogation of the accused concerned and hence, the question of humiliation and consequent damage to the morale of the concerned largely do not arise. Substantial portion of the investigation in a case of this nature is recording the statement of witnesses and examination of documents in the office of the petitioner. The very purpose of the Act is to ensure accountability on the part of public servants to offer services in an unpolluted manner, free from the taint of corruption and thereby ensure good governance. There is equally no doubt about the fact that public servants are working under trying circumstances and instances are not unknown when they become easy prey to the machinations of some unscrupulous busybodies. There is equally no doubt about the fact that public servants are working under trying circumstances and instances are not unknown when they become easy prey to the machinations of some unscrupulous busybodies. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, courts have to strike a cautious note, note of striking a balance between the need to afford an ecosystem for the public servant to work without fear and favour and at the same time ensuring that such protective measures do not afford a handle to an unscrupulous public servant to misuse his office as lever to aggrandize himself. 16. Power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is a drastic one; it has the effect, if exercised, of nipping the very investigation in the bud, in the nascent stage itself. Perforce, such a power has to be used sparingly and with circumspection. Here in this case, serious allegations of petitioner, a public servant, using his position as such to obtain undue advantage directly and through others is made in the complaint. Search proceedings has yielded considerably large sum of money from the subordinates of petitioner and deed writers operating from his premises for which explanation was not found satisfactory. It is impossible, nay, imprudent and unsafe for this Court at this stage to wager on the explanation offered by each of such persons and deduce, as contended for the petitioner, that they are satisfactory, or, as contended for the prosecution, that they are unsatisfactory. Allegation is that petitioner, who is a sub-Registrar, is obtaining undue advantage from the public for performing his duty of registering documents and other allied duties directly and through others. Truth can only be unearthed by diligent investigation. 17. What is the resultant position emerging after the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amish Devgan’s case (supra) and Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal’s case (supra) in regard to exercise of power by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? 18. Truth can only be unearthed by diligent investigation. 17. What is the resultant position emerging after the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amish Devgan’s case (supra) and Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal’s case (supra) in regard to exercise of power by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? 18. Generally, admitting of just exceptions, it appears that the following principles need to be kept in view while exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. They are:- (1) while the power to quash the criminal proceedings is an inherent one, it needs to be exercised for preventing abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (2) where there is legal bar against institution or continuation of the prosecution or proceedings, such as, due to requirement of prior sanction; (3) where allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value, accepting in its entirety do not constitute prima facie any offence or make out the case against the accused; (4) where allegations made in the FIR do not disclose cognizable offence; (5) where allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) in cases where charge sheet is filed, where allegations against the accused might constitute an offence alleged, but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge; (7) in the nature of very power which is exercised even prior to any investigation is held or where investigation is held, material is yet to be scrutinized by trial, such exercise has to be with circumspection and very sparingly; and (8) application of these principles depend on factual matrix of each case. 19. Therefore, whether this is a fit case to exercise the drastic power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.? In light of the law laid down in Amish Devagan’s case (supra) can it be said that permitting the investigation to be held in this case would be abuse of process of law? Answer seems to be a clear no. 20. 19. Therefore, whether this is a fit case to exercise the drastic power under section 482 of Cr.P.C.? In light of the law laid down in Amish Devagan’s case (supra) can it be said that permitting the investigation to be held in this case would be abuse of process of law? Answer seems to be a clear no. 20. On an entire consideration of the materials placed before me I am not satisfied that a case is made out for quashing the same in exercise of my powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, I hold that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.