ORDER : The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 8/2012, dated 18.07.2012, under Section 4.5 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act 1983, registered with Anti Corruption, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Mandi, H.P. 2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer in Beas Valley Power Corporation Limited Uhal, StageIII, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, a contract was awarded to one Sh. Vijay Kumar, Government Contractor, for the work of concreting of an existing road at Village Hattan from RD Point 0.0 to 350 meters, in two parts, i.e. on 17.11.2008 and 07.02.2009. The aforesaid work of concreting was under a scheme of Local Development Area Committee, being supervised by Beas Valley Power Corporation. The road was completed in the year 2010. However, in the year 2009, a complaint No. 670/2009 was filed by the villagers of Village Hattan that the Contractor had not used appropriate material for the work of laying concrete over the existing road. Consequently, investigation was conducted, but, nothing was found against the contractor and since the contractor had repaired the road twice to the satisfaction of villagers, the villagers filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint against him and the case was closed by the Vigilance. 3. On 18.07.2012, i.e. after about two years of laying concrete over the existing road, some of the villagers of Village Hattan, again lodged an FIR, i.e. FIR No. 8/2012, against the contractor, as well as the officials, who were In-charge during the said period. As per the petitioner, the said FIR was not in his knowledge, as he was posted in Bhutan under foreign services from 2011 to 2017. However, when the petitioner came back to India in the year, 2017, he came to know about the said FIR and as such, had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, wherein the respondents have made a statement that no case has been made against the petitioner as of now, hence, the bail application was decided accordingly. 4. 4. On 23.08.2012, the Additional Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption Bureau, Mandi, H.P., by way of a letter forwarded to Chief Engineer, Uhl Division-II, Beas Valley Power Corporation Ltd., sought certain information and in pursuance thereto, vide letter dated 06.12.2012, an Inquiry Committee was formed to investigate the case. The Inquiry Committee after investigation, submitted its report dated 29.12.2012, wherein it was observed that after about two years of concreting of road, the concrete topping of entire portion was found intact and general condition of road was found satisfactory and vehicles were plying smoothly on the road, however, cracks were found only at 2-3 places, were due to settlement of sub-grade and not because of poor quality or specification of the material used. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.12.2016, again an inquiry report was submitted, wherein also, full satisfaction over the quality/specification of work was indicated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the departmental proceedings nothing has come against the petitioner. He has further argued that the villagers have also withdrawn their complaints, which were filed with malafide intentions and appropriate material was used by the petitioner for construction of road. The petitioner was only Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer was the supervising officer. He has argued that vide Annexure P-2, the State has made closure report. He has further argued that the petitioner is innocent and taking into consideration the long delay in filing the FIR, the petition be quashed qua the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that 759 bags of cement were required to be consumed as per the contract, but only 268 bags of cement were used by the petitioner. He has further argued that road was of substandard quality and on the complaint of the villagers, it was found that proper work has not been carried out. He has argued that now the permission has been sought from the Prosecution Department under Section 197 Cr. P.C., as the misconduct was during the course of employment. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents became active only after filing of the present petition and no prosecution sanction has been granted till date, as there was nothing against the petitioner. So, in these circumstances, the instant petition be quashed, qua the petitioner. 8. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents became active only after filing of the present petition and no prosecution sanction has been granted till date, as there was nothing against the petitioner. So, in these circumstances, the instant petition be quashed, qua the petitioner. 8. From the reading of FIR and other documents which have come on record, no case is made out against the petitioner, as neither he was involved with the consumption/non-consumption of the cement bags nor there is any allegation that he has misused the cement bags. Further, the investigation is pending for more than 9 years and the Government did not even grant prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC, which clearly shows that the pendency of the investigation and FIR is nothing, but a torture, without there being any allegation against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the present is a fit case where judicial discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner to secure the ends of justice. 9. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No. 8/2012, dated 18.07.2012, under Section 4.5 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act 1983, registered with Anti Corruption, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Mandi, H.P., qua the petitioner, alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, is ordered to be quashed. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.