JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No. 190/2022 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Jaipur for different offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging therein that disproportionate assets were found in possession of the petitioners. 2. A brief background is that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Chief Executive Officer (Project), Rajasthan Biofuel as well as ex-officio Joint Secretary in Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. FIR No. 123/2022 dated 8.4.2022 was registered with the same Police Station alleges that the petitioner had demanded bribe for showing favour to the complainant and on the instructions of the petitioner, trap money was paid to one Devesh Sharma waiting outside the chamber of the petitioner and Devesh Sharma was apprehended along with the trap money. On the same day, i.e. 7.4.2022 search and seizures were made from the house of the petitioner, his wife as well as his son and a seizure list was prepared which is at Annexure-4. On the basis of seizure, the Anti Corruption Bureau came to the conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of disproportionate assets to the known sources of their income and accordingly, the impugned FIR No. 190/2022 was registered on 19.5.2022. 3. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that impugned FIR has been registered in haste without correctly verifying the assets of the petitioner, rather this was a fit case wherein preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR was essential. Learned counsel has placed reliance on different judgments of the Supreme Court referred hereinbelow including the latest judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr. Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923 wherein previous judgments were also considered. 4. Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State respondents and ACB contends that preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR is not necessary in each and every case. Moreover, in the case on hand, preliminary inquiry was done to come to the conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. Moreover, even if FIR was registered without any preliminary inquiry it cannot be quashed at the instance of accused. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr. Vs. Moreover, even if FIR was registered without any preliminary inquiry it cannot be quashed at the instance of accused. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr. Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi & Anr. (supra). 5. Before considering the factual aspect of this case, it would be apt to look into the law prevailing in the matter of need of preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR. In P. Sirajuddin and Ors. vs. State of Madras and Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 595 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 17 stated as follows: “17. In our view the procedure adopted against the appellant before the laying of the first information report though not in terms forbidden by law, was so unprecedented and outrageous as to shock one's sense of justice and fairplay. ... ... ... ... ... ... Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the opposition in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general. If the Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. The enquiring officer must not act under any preconceived idea of guilt of the person whose conduct was being enquired into or pursue the enquiry in such a manner as to lead to an inference that he was bent upon securing the conviction of the said person by adopting measures which are of doubtful validity or sanction. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable.” 6. In Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & ors. The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable.” 6. In Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , a five judges Bench of the Supreme Court in para 117 stated as follows: “117. In the context of offences relating to corruption, this Court in P. Sirajuddin (supra) expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.” 7. In CBI Vs. Thommandru (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered both the judgments aforesaid, while considering one of the point involved whether preliminary inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR in corruption cases. Para 40 and 41 of the judgment are being reproduced below as the petitioners have relied on para 41 and respondents on Para 40:- “40. In view of the above discussion, we hold that since the institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure, PC Act or even the CBI Manual, for this Court to issue a direction to that affect will be tantamount to stepping into the legislative domain. Hence, we hold that in case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a "source information" under Chapter 8, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 41. The above formulation does not take away from the value of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry in an appropriate case. This has been acknowledged by the decisions of this Court in P Sirajuddin (supra), Lalita Kumari (supra) and Charansingh (supra). Even in Vinod Dua (supra), this Court noted that "[a]s a matter of fact, the accepted norm-be it in the form of CBI Manual or like instruments is to insist on a preliminary inquiry". The registration of a Regular Case can have disastrous consequences for the career of an officer, if the allegations ultimately turn out to be false. In a Preliminary Enquiry, the CBI is allowed access to documentary records and speak to persons just as they would in an investigation, which entails that information gathered can be used at the investigation stage as well. In a Preliminary Enquiry, the CBI is allowed access to documentary records and speak to persons just as they would in an investigation, which entails that information gathered can be used at the investigation stage as well. Hence, conducting a Preliminary Enquiry would not take away from the ultimate goal of prosecuting Accused persons in a timely manner. However, we once again clarify that if the CBI chooses not to hold a Preliminary Enquiry, the Accused cannot demand it as a matter of right. As clarified by this Court in Managipet (supra), the purpose of Lalita Kumari (supra) noting that a Preliminary Enquiry is valuable in corruption cases was not to vest a right in the Accused but to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of law in order to target public servants.” 8. Thus, guiding principle that emerges is that preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR in appropriate cases has value, however it does not vest a right in the accused to challenge the FIR where the CBI chooses not to hold a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR. Further, the higher courts are not denude of power to look into individual cases to satisfy about the need of pre-FIR inquiry to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 9. (a). In the case on hand, the respondents authorities have taken check period from 2000 to 7.4.2022 when the petitioner entered into public office in the State of Rajasthan till the date of search and seizure. According to the petitioner, he was in job in Indian Airforce and retired in the year 2000 and thereafter he joined his present assignment, therefore, if preliminary inquiry would have been conducted, the authorities would have taken the income and savings of the petitioner prior to 2000. The respondents authorities were aware of the pension account of the petitioner vide Serial No. 31 of the seizure list at Annexure-4. The disclosure of different Fixed Deposits of the petitioner in the FIR from Serial No. 40 to 47 were drawn from the pension account of the petitioner. If the preliminary inquiry would have been conducted, the petitioner would have had opportunity to explain these incomes and the miscalculation and misunderstanding could have been avoided. (b) The FIR was lodged clubbing income of 22 years. If the preliminary inquiry would have been conducted, the petitioner would have had opportunity to explain these incomes and the miscalculation and misunderstanding could have been avoided. (b) The FIR was lodged clubbing income of 22 years. If the income, expenditures and savings would have been bifurcated in a tabular chart yearwise, it must have led to a different result and objectivity. (c) The FIR would disclose that the petitioner spent Rs. 10 lacs during his visit abroad. When the petitioner stated on oath that he never visited abroad, the respondents in their counter affidavit took the stand for the first time herein that in fact, expenditure was in respect of son of the petitioner who prosecuted his studies aboard. In the expenditure it is further stated that the petitioner spent about 20 lacs on education of his son in a foreign country. A preliminary inquiry would have clarified that education of the son of the petitioner was on bank loan as well as the fact that the petitioner never visited abroad. (d) No material is there to allege in the FIR that petitioner spent Rs. 20 lacs on marriage of his son, who was already engaged in different businesses and was already paying income tax. In absence of any material to suggest expenditure on the marriage, an imaginary ascertainment of amount just on the date of institution of FIR suffers from arbitrariness. (e) A shop said to be purchased by petitioner No.2 who is wife of petitioner No.1 was in fact purchased in the year 1986. In the preliminary inquiry, the respondents would have got verification of the actual documents before coming to an imaginary calculation of the present value of the said shop. (f) The search and seizure memo at Annexure-4 would reveal that house No. 180 and 181 in Tara Nagar-A, Jhotwara, Jaipur was searched in presence of Deependra, son of the petitioner. Deependra stated that house belongs to him. The present valuation of the house has been taken as assets of the petitioner and if preliminary inquiry would have been conducted it would have surfaced that plot No. 180 was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed and consideration money was paid through Bank Draft after obtaining loan from the Bank. Deependra stated that house belongs to him. The present valuation of the house has been taken as assets of the petitioner and if preliminary inquiry would have been conducted it would have surfaced that plot No. 180 was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed and consideration money was paid through Bank Draft after obtaining loan from the Bank. Likewise, plot No. 181 was transferred to Deependra, the son of the petitioner by one Shashi and the sale deed also reveals that consideration money was paid through bank draft. Deependra had his own business of collection of toll tax and some other business, therefore, in the preliminary inquiry, his income could have been ascertained separately before clubbing the income of the son with the property of the petitioner. The Honda Car in the name of the petitioner was purchased after obtaining loan from the Bank and relevant documents have been produced on record. The preliminary inquiry could have clarified the source of money from which it was purchased before coming to conclusion on disproportionate assets. (g) An Audi Car showing in the name of Vijay Laxmi, wife of Deependar and mentioned at Serial No. 13 of the FIR was purchased by the son of the petitioner from his business profit and getting loan from the Bank. Without ascertaining source of money for purchase of the Audi Car the same has been clubbed with the income of the petitioner, though the authorities were aware that the son had independent and sufficient source of income as he was already paying income tax. During search operation, cash was seized from the house of son of the petitioner which was released in favour of son of the petitioner when he satisfied this Court that the same was not disproportionate to the known sources of his income as well as considering the nature of business of his son. (h) The petitioner had produced document that loan of Rs. 1.72 crore and odd was taken for construction of the house on Plot No. 180 and 181 and whether the papers produced by the petitioners were genuine would have been established in the preliminary inquiry itself before coming to any conclusion. (h) The petitioner had produced document that loan of Rs. 1.72 crore and odd was taken for construction of the house on Plot No. 180 and 181 and whether the papers produced by the petitioners were genuine would have been established in the preliminary inquiry itself before coming to any conclusion. The properties standing in the name of petitioner No.2 Shashi, wife of petitioner No.2 were also clubbed as assets of the petitioner knowing well that Shashi was 30% capital partner in Galaxi Mining and Realities, a firm, therefore, in the preliminary inquiry her total income from that source or any other source should have been ascertained before lodging of FIR of disproportionate assets. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid are some of the instances to persuade any prudent person that a preliminary inquiry ought to have been conducted before coming to the conclusion that petitioners were having assets disproportionate to their known source of income. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken the Court to different letters issued on 11.4.2022 to different authorities wherein prayer is for seizure of the Bank Accounts in the name of the petitioners and those letters were assumed as part of preliminary inquiry. The submission does not find favour of the Court that in fact, inquiry was conducted in the matter of anomalies pointed out above. 12. From the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR was a must in the facts of the case before putting the valuable right of the accused in jeopardy. Evidently, the authorities have acted in so casual and negligent manner in getting the FIR registered without satisfying themselves about the genuineness of the claim and commission of offence alleged against the petitioners. 13. In the circumstances, sustenance of the impugned FIR would lead to miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law. This one is an exceptional case where non interference would result in miscarriage of justice, therefore, the impugned FIR stands hereby quashed and this petition is allowed. 14. Pending applications stands disposed of.