ORDER : 1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs : Petition No. 2342/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.195/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS, Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” Petition No.1339/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present Criminal Misc. Petition and the FIR No.196/2017 registered on dated 21.07.2017, at Police Station CPS ACB JAIPUR, against the petitioner for the alleged offences U/S 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 & 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.” Petition No.1340/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present Criminal Misc. Petition and the FIR No.195/2017 registered on dated 21.07.2017, at Police Station CPS ACB JAIPUR, against the petitioner for the alleged offences U/S 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 & 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.” Petition No.1341/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present Criminal Misc. Petition and the FIR No.197/2017 registered on dated 21.07.2017, at Police Station CPS ACB JAIPUR, against the petitioner for the alleged offences U/S 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 & 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.” Petition No.2343/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.195/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” Petition No.2345/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.195/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” Petition No.2346/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.197/2017 dated 21.07.2017 alleging offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” Petition No.2348/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.197/2017 dated 21.07.2017 alleging offences under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” Petition No.2572/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.196/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” Petition No.2573/2019: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.196/2017 dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS Jaipur for offences under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 120B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside being an abuse of process of law.” 2. The issues raised in all the instant petitions arise out of a common controversy, and therefore, the facts, as placed before this Court by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar and; Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana and Mr. Rajat Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are being taken from S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2342/2019, while treating the same as the lead case. 3. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar and; Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana and Mr. Rajat Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are being taken from S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2342/2019, while treating the same as the lead case. 3. During September-November 2016, M/s Shrinath Travels (also referred to as ‘the Firm’) applied at the offices of D.T.O. Shahpura, D.T.O. Rajsamand and D.T.O. Chittorgarh for Private Service Vehicle (PSV) permits for its buses, and accordingly, the same were issued. 3.1 Petitioners Om Prakash Bairwa and Nain Singh Sodha were working as D.T.O. Rajsamand, while petitioner-Anil Pandya was working as D.T.O. Shahpura and petitioner-Rajiv Choudhary as D.T.O. Chittorgarh, at the time of the issue of the aforesaid permits. At that time, petitioner-Om Prakash Gupta was an employee at D.T.O. Office, Rajsamand, petitioner-Nandkishore Sen at D.T.O. Office, Shahpura, and petitioner-Ghanshyam Gupta was an employee at D.T.O. Office, Chittorgarh. 3.2 A news item was published on 20.01.2017 in ‘Rajasthan Patrika’, on the basis of which petitioner-Nain Singh Sodha, in the capacity of D.T.O. Rajsamand, issued a notice to M/s. Shrinath Travels stating therein that the buses were being used as ‘contract carriages’ instead of ‘private service vehicles’ and called upon the said Firm to deposit motor vehicle tax, special road tax and surcharge and penalty, further directing the Firm to appear before him on 23.01.2017; along side the same, another notice was issued proposing action against the Firm under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while directing three S.I. rank police officers to conduct an inquiry, and submit a report in regard thereto. 3.3 In the meanwhile, surprise inspections were conducted of the D.T.O. Offices - Rajsamand, Shahpura and Chittorgarh by the A.C.B. and relevant records were seized. 3.4 On 07.02.2017, a notice was issued by the D.T.O. Rajsamand to the Firm for deposition of aforementioned dues, and on 15.02.2017, a warrant for attachment of property was issued against 12 buses of the Firm-M/s. Shrinath Travel Agency, whereupon the Firm approached this Hon’ble Court by way of filing various writ petitions; 7 buses were released in compliance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, on 27.02.2017. 3.5 On 03.03.2017, the Firm was issued a notice for hearing of the matter under Section 86 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the entire dues in regard to permits issued by the three D.T.O. were recovered along with penalty and interest, on count of violation of the terms and conditions of PSV permits, while treating the same as Contract Carriage Permits. 3.6 However, on 21.07.2017, three F.I.R.s being F.I.R. Nos. 195/17, 196/17, 197/17 were registered by the A.C.B. against the petitioners and the owner of M/s.Shrinath Travel Agency in regard to permits issued by the offices of the three D.T.O., alleging offences under Sections 13(1) (c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. 3.7 A final enquiry report was submitted by the Additional R.T.O., Udaipur on the same allegations, wherein the petitioners were exonerated from the charges of collusion, and it was found that no revenue loss has occurred and the dues have already been recovered. And that, it was further held that there was neither negligence nor any abuse of power or post by the petitioners and that the news item was baseless. 3.8 A tax assessment order was passed by the D.T.O. Rajsamand on 31.03.2018; which was assailed by the Firm in appeal before the Regional Transport Authority (Appeals), Udaipur, but the same was dismissed, on 31.03.2019, with the finding that no illegalities in the issuance of permits was found. 3.9 That the petitioners Om Prakash Bairwa, Anil Pandya, Rajiv Choudhary and Om Prakash Gupta were suspended on grant of prosecution sanction whereupon they filed writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court, whereby the effect and operation of the suspension orders was stayed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are baseless and unsustainable. And that, a bare perusal of the F.I.Rs. would reveal that the ingredients for the offences under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) are prima facie not made out. 4.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in the cases; 2015 SCC Online Rajasthan 10647 Prof. M.K. Vyas v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2016 SCC Online Raj. 766 Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan; (2013) 1 SCC 205 C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State; 2018 (2) R.L.W. 1302 (Raj.) Pushpa Devi Jain v. State; and 2020 (3) R.L.W. 2295 (Raj.) Lal Chand Aswal v. State of Rajasthan. M.K. Vyas v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2016 SCC Online Raj. 766 Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan; (2013) 1 SCC 205 C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State; 2018 (2) R.L.W. 1302 (Raj.) Pushpa Devi Jain v. State; and 2020 (3) R.L.W. 2295 (Raj.) Lal Chand Aswal v. State of Rajasthan. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the final enquiry report was not duly considered, whereby the petitioners were exonerated from all the charges levelled against them. 4.2.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in the cases; 2022 SCC Online SC 82 Mustt. Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, 1996 (9) SCC 1 ; 1996 (9) SCC 1 P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar and; Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit v. State (S.B. Crl. Misc.(Pet.) No. 2744/2014, decided by this Hon’ble Court on 30.05.2016). 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel also submit that there was no revenue loss to the State Exchequer, and that the department acted swiftly and recovered the entire amount of dues, including penalty and interest for the months in question. Furthermore, the said recovery was made prior to the filing of the F.I.Rs. in question, and that the same is clear from a perusal of the record; as the recovery was initiated on 20.1.2017, while the A.C.B. action was initiated on 23.01.2017. 4.3.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Pushpa Devi Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 (2) R.L.W. 1302 (Raj.). 4.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submit that the petitioners have been implicated solely on the basis of the F.I.R. in question, and that a mere possible misuse of the private service permits cannot be stretched to the extent of guilt to sustain charges, at least, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4.5. Learned Senior Counsel also submit that the present case is a fit case for indulgence of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that such exercise would be warranted even in the case where a prosecution sanction was granted, wherein the Court could interfere and consider the challenge to the F.I.R. 4.5.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in the cases of 1992 (Supl. 1) SCC 335 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. and 2016 SCC Online Raj. 766 Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan. 1) SCC 335 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. and 2016 SCC Online Raj. 766 Veer Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan. 4.6 Learned Senior Counsel further submit that the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. may also be exercised by the Court, even in cases where the charge-sheet has been filed by the concerned police authorities. 4.6.1 Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of 2019 (11) SCC 705 Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi). 5. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. cum G.A. Mr. M.A. Siddiqui opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that a prima facie case, as ought to be considered at this stage, is made out against the petitioners, and therefore, submissions made on their behalf, seeking the indulgence of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted. 5.1 He further submits that from the investigation so conducted, the allegations levelled against the petitioners for the offences as mentioned in the F.I.Rs. in question are found to be made out. And that, the prosecution sanction for the same has also been granted. However, due to the stay granted in the favour of the petitioners, the investigating agency is restrained from proceeding against the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 5.2 He thus submits that the stay granted in the favour of the petitioners, vide the respective orders in each of the matters, ought to be vacated by this Court, so that the investigation could culminate into filing of the charge-sheet, and the law could take its own course, against the petitioners. 5.3 He therefore, submits that the present petitions ought to be disposed of with liberty to the investigating agencies to file the charge-sheet, since the matters are pending since the year 2019, and that the expeditious disposal of the same would be in the interest of justice. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. At the outset, this Court observes that, per the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. At the outset, this Court observes that, per the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), 7 cardinal principles were expounded, warranting the interference of the Court under the inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The same is reproduced as hereunder for ready reference and brevity:- “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. 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. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as lucidly enumerated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and as is reflected from a bare reading of the impugned F.I.Rs. and other documents placed on record, that the ingredients for the offences under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d) / (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. are not made out as no specific allegations have been made to that extent, against the petitioners. 9. and other documents placed on record, that the ingredients for the offences under Sections 13 (1) (c) (d) / (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. are not made out as no specific allegations have been made to that extent, against the petitioners. 9. The relevant portion of the final enquiry report dated 17.09.2018, as mentioned above, whereby the petitioners were exonerated of the charges of collusion, while finding that no revenue loss had occurred to the State Exchequer, and that the aforementioned news item was baseless, reads as under : ^^ - - - - - blls Li"V :i ls ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd fdlh Hkh ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh vFkok deZpkjh dh mDr QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk jktleUn ls feyhHkxr ugha gS u gh fdlh vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh }kjk vius in dk nq:i;ksx ;k dk;Z esa ykijokgh dh gSA iqu%'p leLr çdj.k esa fnukad 20-01-2017 dks tSls gh laKku esa vk;k ,oa f'kdk;rksa dk lR;kiu gqvk] lEcaf/kr QeZ ds f[kykQ l[r dk;Zokgh djrs gq, ek= pkj ekg dh vYikof/k ¼20-01-2017 ls 15-04-2017 rd½ esa mDr QeZ ls 62]86]293@& ¼cklB yk[k fN;kalh gtkj nks lkS rjk.kosa :i;s½ Øe'k% 20]99]992@& ¼chl yk[k fuU;kuos gtkj uks lkS cjk.kosa :i;s½ fnukad 15-03-2017 ,oa 17-03-2017 ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy; 'kkgiqjk HkhyokM+k esa ,oa 21]57]995@& ¼bZfDdl yk[k lRrkou gtkj uks lkS fipkuosa :i;s½ fnukad 30-03-2017 ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy; fpRrkSM+xढ+ esa rFkk 20]28]306@& ¼chl yk[k vBkbZl gtkj rhu lkS N% :i;s½ fnukad 11-03-2017] 21-03-2017 ,oa 13-04-2017 dks ftyk ifjogu dk;kZy; jktleUn esa djyh xbZ gSA mDr çdj.k esa ;g Li"V gS fd leLr jktdh; jktLo dh e; C;kt ,oa isuYVh olwyh dh tk pqdh gS] ftlls ifjogu foHkkx dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ys'k ek= Hkh jktLo gkfu ugha gqbZ gS rFkk fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh }kjk lEcaf/kr QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½ ls feyhHkxr djus ;k voS/kkfud rjhds ls ifjykHk ;k lqfo/kk,sa çkIr djus dk dksbZ Hkh lcwr izdV ;k lalqfpr ugha gqvk gSA tcfd leLr çdj.k esa lEcaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dh dk;Z dq'kyrk çekf.kr gksrh gSA vr% eSa çHkqyky ckeuh;k vfrfjDr çknsf'kd ifjogu vf/kdkjh mn;iqj mDr leLr çdj.k esa foLr`r tkap dj bl fu"d"kZ ij igwapk gwa fd %& 1- mDr leLr çdj.k esa ;g rF; fo'ks"k :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd futh lsok;ku ijfeV gsrq vkosnu drkZ Lo;a ,d jftLVMZ QeZ gS] ftlds }kjk ifjogu foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr] futhlsok;ku gsrq çk:i la[;k 5] 6 esa vkosnu fd;k x;k ,oa vkosnd dh ea'kkuqlkj çk:i 5-14 es futh lsok;ku ijfeV gh tkjh fd, x,A tks fd fu;ekuqlkj fof/klEer dk;Zokgh gSA D;ksafd dsUnzh; eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 80 ds vuqlkj vkosnd ftl çdkj ,oa ftl m)s'; ds fy, vuqKki= ¼ijfeV½ ekax jgk gS mldks vuqKki= tkjh djrs le; jksdk ugha tk ldrk gSA vr% lHkh ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fo'kq) ea'kk ls mDr ijfeV tkjh fd, x, tks fd fof/k lEer gSA 2- mDr leLr çdj.k esa ijfeV /kkjd QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½ }kjk ijfeV 'krksZ ds mYya?ku ds dkj.k dsUnzh; eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 76 dk gh mYya?ku djrs gq, dksUVªsDV dsfjt ds :i esa okguksa dk lapkyu dj] djoapuk (Tax Evasion) dh tk jgh FkhA ftlds fo:) leLr çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fof/k lEer rfjds ls ek= pkj ekg fd vYikof/k ¼20-01-2017 ls 15-04-2017 rd½ esa gh leLr vfrfjDr cdk;k jktLo dh izkfIr 62]86]293@& ¼cklB yk[k fN;klh gtkj nks lkS rjk.kosa :i;s½ e; C;kt ,oa iSuYVh ds lkFk olwy dj ds dk;Zdq'kyrk dk ifjp; fn;k gSA 3- mDr leLr çdj.k esa f'kdk;r ds fuLrkj.k esa ifjogu foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us loZçFke vfxze igy dj ¼fnukad 20-01-2017 ls gh½ leLr jktdh; jktLo dh olwyh fof/klEer rjhds ls dk;Zokgh djrs gq, dh gS ftlls mDr leLr çdj.k esa jkT; ljdkj dks ys'k ek= Hkh jktLo gkfu ugha igqaph gSA 4- leLr çdj.k esa nLrkostksa ds fujh{k.k ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd leLr okguksa dk iathd`r Lokeh ,oa futhlsok;ku ¼vuqKki=½ ijfeV /kkjd jftLVMZ QeZ ^^JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½** gSA ijfeV dk vkosnu fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM }kjk ugha fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa uk gh leLr okguksa dk Lokeh fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dks cuk;k x;k FkkA ijfeV dk vkosnu QeZ JhukFk Vªkosy ,tsUlh ukFk}kjk ¼jktleUn½ }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa ijfeV Hkh mlh QeZ dks tkjh fd, x, FksA vr% lekpkj i= dh bl [kcj dk [k.Mu gksrk gS fd fefyHkxr dj fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dks okguksa dk Lokeh cuk fn;k x;kA vr% bl fo'oluh; rF; ds lkFk fd ^uhthlsok;ku* ijfeV /kkjd okguksa dk dkWUVªsDV dsjht ;ku ijfeV /kkjd okgu ds :i esa djuk ^jftLVMZ QeZ&JhukFk VªsoYl ,tsUlh dk gh nks"k gS] ,oa mDr nks"kh }kjk leLr jktLo e; C;kt ,oa isuYVh ds lkFk loZ= tek djk;k tk pqdk gSA vr% leLr vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fo'kq) ea'kk ls ijfeV nsus ds dk;Z ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA Jheku~ dh lsok esa ewy gh tkap fjiksVZ e; fjdkMZ ,oa vuqHko/kkfjr rF;ksa ds lkFk okLrs vxzhe dk;Zokgh çsf"kr gSA** 10. This Court is conscious of fact that in the given factual matrix, wherein once the alleged default is purely done during the discharge of official duties and in the collection of revenue, then it is the department, which would be in the best position to ascertain and assess the conduct of the petitioner-officials, so as to find out, if there was any dereliction of duty on their part or whether any fraud was committed by them. 11. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the allegations are pertaining to the record of the concerned department, the observations made by the department itself make it very clear that after seeing the record, it has not found any revenue loss / tax evasion having been occurred or any kind of deliberate or intentional default having been committed by the concerned officials, including the present petitioners. 12. This Court thus, observes that the government officers (petitioners) are a bridge for the allegations to travel upto the private parties, and once the said bridge itself collapses and no offences are found to be made out against the officials herein, the allegations, as levelled upon the private parties, cannot be sustained in the given factual matrix. When the act of the officer(s) itself was found to be not constituting any kind of dereliction of duty or causing any kind of illegality or causing any revenue loss to the State Exchequer, then the allegations cannot travel further to the private parties. 13. This Court further draws strength from the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mustt. Rehana Begum (supra) and that of a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Prof. M.K. Vyas v. State of Rajasthan (Supra). Furthermore, the ratio decidendi laid down in the case of Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit v. State (supra) squarely applies to the present case, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court observed that since the Government had dropped the proceedings/inquiry on the administrative side, there was no reason for the criminal proceedings to be allowed to continue. Similar observations to that extent, and regarding the vigilance that a Court must exercise in initiating criminal proceedings against an accused, were observed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Lal Chand Aswal (supra). Similar observations to that extent, and regarding the vigilance that a Court must exercise in initiating criminal proceedings against an accused, were observed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Lal Chand Aswal (supra). 13.1 This Court further observes that for a case, as mentioned in the impugned FIRs, to be made out against the petitioners, and for which prosecution is sought against the petitioners, require that a demand for any kind of illegal gratification was made by the accused, on the basis of which further proceedings may be initiated against the accused, as set out under the Act of 1988. However, the same is absent in the present case. 13.2 The observations by this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Jain (supra) are also relevant to the present case, that the element of corrupt and illegal means for obtaining, for himself or another, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, with or without public interest, is apparently not found in the present set of facts, as discussed above. 14. This Court is thus of the clear opinion that principles no. 2 and 3, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) apply in the present case, and therefore, it is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court, and quash the impugned F.I.Rs in the instant batch of petitions, all arising out of the same factual matrix and common controversy. 15. Resultantly, the present petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR Nos.195/2017, 196/2017 & 197/2017 lodged at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, POS, Jaipur, alongwith entire proceedings pursuant thereto, qua the present petitioners, are quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of.