JUDGMENT Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred laying a challenge to order dated 22.10.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Act, No. 2, Jaipur in Criminal Regular Case No. 51/2015 (81/2011), titled as State of Rajasthan v. Atul Kumar Garg, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner. 2. Challenging the order dated 22.10.2016, it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate, Mr. A.K. Gupta assisted by Mr. Aniket Sharma that if the contents of the FIR are taken on its face value, then no offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the accused-petitioner. It is submitted that there is no evidence at all to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner while discharging officials duties did not act beyond jurisdiction and the order dated 09.03.2010, extension of one year in favour of NLP Organic Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'company') to clear the settled amount was granted as per the powers available to him under the Circulars of the Department. In support of this arguments, he placed reliance on a Circular dated 22.04.2009, issued by Rajasthan Financial Corporation under the subject "Scheme for One Time Settlement". Reliance was placed on judgments Sarabjeet Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 2009 SC, 2792, Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj 1990, Cri.L.J. 1869, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991 and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 366 . 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposing the petition argued that the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Anti Corruption Act, No. 2, Jaipur recorded sufficient reasons while framing charges against the petitioner. From the perusal of the charges, it is clear that pursuant to the decision taken in the State Level Committee dated 09.03.2010, no amount of settlement was deposited by the company. Yet, on an application of the company, the petitioner without recording any reason, acting beyond jurisdiction allowed one year time to the company for clearing the settled amount. He apprised the Court that the order dated 09.03.2010, was passed by the petitioner while he was under transfer. He placed reliance on judgment of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 338. 4. He apprised the Court that the order dated 09.03.2010, was passed by the petitioner while he was under transfer. He placed reliance on judgment of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Chaudhary & Ors. reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 338. 4. In case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suspicion about commission of an offence and involvement of the accused is sufficient to frame charge. 5. It is settled law that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. 6. Taking into consideration, the narrow scope of interference at the stage, the overall factual matrix as well as documents placed on record, no cause for making any interference is made out. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take up all legal issues, at the appropriate stage, before the learned trial court. 7. The present criminal revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.