ORDER : 1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 01/2022 titled State Vs. Rajaram and Another pending before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, No. 1, Jaipur for offences under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 qua the petitioner. 2. This case has come up for hearing by virtue of being listed before this Court as per the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to be filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASP’) at the Headquarter, ACB stating therein that an overview and analysis of a video clip which was being broadcasted on Zee Media Television Channel on 10.06.2021 revealed that there was a bill amount of Rs. 276 crores which was to be paid by Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur to a company named BVG in exchange for their cleaning services. It is also stated by him that there is conversation between representatives of BVG company and Mr. Rajaram Gurjar, husband of the then suspended mayor (herein after referred to as the 'mayor'), Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur regarding payment of 10 percent of the pending bill amount, i.e. Rs. 20 crores, to Mr. Rajaram, in exchange of which he would get the pending bills cleared. It was felt by the ASP that a case of taking undue advantage by using his personal influence with a public servant was prima facie made out against Mr. Rajaram Gurjar. Upon filing of the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry No. 03/2021 was registered and the investigation was handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Unit, ACB, Jaipur who had filed the complaint at the Headquarter in the first instance on 10.06.2021. On the same day, as per the FIR, the ASP received a SanDisk pendrive from reliable sources containing the audio-visual recording of the clip that was broadcasted on social media and television in which the representatives of BVG Company, including the petitioner, and Mr. Rajaram Gurjar are conversing regarding exchange of bribe in order to get the payment of pending bills cleared. Rajaram Gurjar are conversing regarding exchange of bribe in order to get the payment of pending bills cleared. When the audio and video recording contained in the said pendrive was listened to and watched by the ASP in the computer of the department, it was found that the conversation so recorded fell in the category of corrupt behaviour. Eventually, the investigation conducted in pursuance of the preliminary enquiry led to the lodging of FIR No. 229/2021 at police station CPS ACB, Jaipur on 28.06.2021 against the present petitioner as well as against Mr. Rajaram Gurjar, husband of the then suspended mayor of Jaipur, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, the other representative of BVG Company, namely Mr. Sandeep Kumar Choudhary and against another co-accused, namely Mr. Nimba Ram. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was presented by the agency before learned Special Judge against the petitioner and Mr. Rajaram and investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) against other two co-accused, namely Sandeep and Nimba Ram, and others. The learned Special Judge went ahead and took cognizance against the petitioner and Mr. Rajaram for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2018') vide order dated 31.01.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner in the court below, then it would lead to gross abuse of process of court and would result in complete failure of justice. The ingredients essential to constitute the alleged offences against the petitioner are conspicuously missing and the petitioner has been made a fall boy in the political feud between the ruling party in the state and the party in opposition. The petitioner is bearing the outcome of victimisation of the company caused due to political rivalry. 5. The ingredients essential to constitute the alleged offences against the petitioner are conspicuously missing and the petitioner has been made a fall boy in the political feud between the ruling party in the state and the party in opposition. The petitioner is bearing the outcome of victimisation of the company caused due to political rivalry. 5. It was further submitted that a perusal of the transcript of the alleged conversation does not reveal that any public servant was induced for improper performance of any public duty by the petitioner; in fact, it was stated on behalf of the company in the alleged video clip that the company is ready to face any inquiry regarding its work and bills and they are ready to go to ACB and even approach the court of law to seek redressal of their grievance, therefore, no offence under Section 8 of the Act of 2018 is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is not a public servant and he is an employee/representative of BVG Company which is a private entity, thus, the elements required to prove commission of offence under Section 7 of the Act of 2018 are also absent. 6. It was also submitted that common human behaviour and common sense dictates that a person who would want to bribe a public servant to seek undue advantage in his favour would not record the process or conversation of the alleged bribe, as is the case of the prosecution, rather he would try to conceal the same. The case of the prosecution does not have any foundation as the primary source of the alleged recording has not been found or located till now by the agency. The prosecution was initiated based on a secondary source of evidence which is further not supported by the statutory requirement stipulated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Thus, it was prayed that the entire proceedings arising out of Criminal case No. 01/2022 pending before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, No. 1, Jaipur be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 7. Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, furnished a factual report and submitted that prima facie sufficient evidence is available on record on the basis of which the petitioner was booked and he is liable to be forced to go through the rigour of trial. 8. 7. Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, furnished a factual report and submitted that prima facie sufficient evidence is available on record on the basis of which the petitioner was booked and he is liable to be forced to go through the rigour of trial. 8. Shri Rajendra Yadav, learned GA-cum-AAG, vehemently and fervently submitted that the evidence collected so far by the agency in the form of electronic evidence is more reliable than the other verbal evidence. Due certification has been supplied with the electronic evidence and requisite examination by the FSL has also been conducted, according to which, as such, it can be said with utmost certainty that four persons, namely, Rajaram, Nimbaram, Omkar Sapre and Sandeep Kumar Choudhary met at a place and made conversation in which the petitioner and Sandeep Choudhary begged for a favour for the purpose of realisation of the amount due with the corporation (Nagar Nigam, Jaipur). The mayor had been sitting on the files since long and the company was facing financial hardship and that is why they were agreeing to negotiate with the husband of the mayor so that the amount of the due bills could be released. On the other hand, the other accused Rajaram, who happened to be the husband of the mayor, was engaging in negotiations on his own behalf as well as on behalf of his mayor-wife for a certain amount of illegal gratification which was to be received for his personal gain towards the work pending with his wife. He was doing so on the basis of his status of being the husband of the mayor by virtue of which he could influence the mayor and get the due bill amount released in favour of the company. The present petitioner was a representative of BVG Company and his involvement cannot be doubted, therefore, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. 9. The matter was heard at several occasions and arguments were finally concluded on 27.02.2023. Written arguments were also submitted on behalf of the respective parties. 10. Heard and considered the oral as well as the written submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the FIR impugned and the other material available on record. 11. Indisputably, the present petitioner is the Admin Head of BVG Company. Written arguments were also submitted on behalf of the respective parties. 10. Heard and considered the oral as well as the written submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the FIR impugned and the other material available on record. 11. Indisputably, the present petitioner is the Admin Head of BVG Company. BVG company was rendering cleaning services in the city of Jaipur and the due bills of contract agreement were pending with the Jaipur Nagar Nigam Greater (hereinafter referred to as ‘Nagar Nigam’). There is pending payment of a whopping amount of approximately Rs. 276 crores which is owed by the Nagar Nigam to the company. It is also eliciting from the record that there were multiple communications made by the representatives of the company to Nagar Nigam through different modes of communication for the purpose of getting their outstanding bills cleared which reflects that the company had made its best efforts to realise the due amount but they had failed to secure the payment. Their backs were against the wall and it appears from other incriminating material produced by the prosecution in the nature of circumstantial as well as direct evidence that they resorted to secure the payment due to the company by fair means or foul. 12. In the opinion of this court, though the electronic evidence with regard to the pendrive containing video clip brought on record in the present case cannot be considered worthy of reliance as the mandate stipulated in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has not been complied with and there are other lacunae in the investigation conducted by the agency which this Court does not wish to discuss in detail, however, there is other material available on record that inculpates the petitioner. For instance, the call data record of the petitioner reveals that calls have been exchanged in between the petitioner and the husband of the mayor (Mr. Rajaram) as well as between the petitioner and the mayor herself and the same is corroborated by the call data record of the mayor and her husband. For instance, the call data record of the petitioner reveals that calls have been exchanged in between the petitioner and the husband of the mayor (Mr. Rajaram) as well as between the petitioner and the mayor herself and the same is corroborated by the call data record of the mayor and her husband. This court is cognizant of the fact that the above instance, in isolation, may not be sufficient enough to connect the present petitioner to the other parties directly in context of offering of a bribe, however, such circumstance cannot be overlooked especially when the petitioner was in conversation with the mayor herself, who is a public servant. 13. The active participation of the petitioner is discernible from the recording spanning over 2 minutes and 35 seconds found in the mobile recovered at the instance of the petitioner wherein the co-accused Sandeep can be seen recording a call made by him using a social media application (WhatsApp) to the husband of the then suspended mayor, Mr. Rajaram Gurjar. The said recording contains conversations between co-accused Sandeep and other accused Mr. Rajaram regarding re-agreement and payment of due bills. 14. Besides the electronic evidence, there is certain material in the form of direct and circumstantial evidence which, if taken on its face value, makes out a good prima facie case in favour of the prosecution. Ample material is available on the case diary to show that he was an active representative of BVG company of which a huge bill amount was pending with the corporation and as alleged, the mayor was sitting on the clearance file for no good reason. The petitioner was doing his level best to get the amount realised in favour of the company and in fact, he, being the Admin Head, was responsible to get realisation of the amount. The non-payment of such a huge amount posed a tough task before the company as the insufficiency of funds had reached an extent where even regular payment of monthly remuneration had become infeasible and the vehicles that were being run by the company could not be employed for the purpose of cleaning across the city. The non-payment of such a huge amount posed a tough task before the company as the insufficiency of funds had reached an extent where even regular payment of monthly remuneration had become infeasible and the vehicles that were being run by the company could not be employed for the purpose of cleaning across the city. The circumstances of the instant matter are suggestive of the fact that the Chairman of the company might be insisting upon the petitioner to get the payment cleared by any means and therefore, the petitioner wanted to win the favour of the mayor to ensure clearance of the pending bills. In the course of undertaking and pursuing this task, he was doing his level best to secure the payment due to the company. The material with regard to the above facts can be perceived from the circumstances enumerated in the FIR, the charge-sheet and the factual report. The concern of the petitioner over facilitating meeting in between Chairman, BVG Company and the Mayor as well as some meetings other than at office premises and the efforts made through unusual modes are making it abundantly clear that the petitioner wanted to secure the pending bill amount for the company by whatever means possible. 15. It is trite law that while hearing a petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings, the High Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry so as to examine the truthfulness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet. Certainly, it is a task to be undertaken by the investigating agency and the learned trial judge and the investigation conducted in the present matter clearly reveals involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. After conducting thorough investigation and collection of material in the form of direct and circumstantial evidence as well as in the form of electronic evidence, the alleged offences were found proved against the petitioner by the agency and thus, a charge sheet was submitted with the trial court. After conducting thorough investigation and collection of material in the form of direct and circumstantial evidence as well as in the form of electronic evidence, the alleged offences were found proved against the petitioner by the agency and thus, a charge sheet was submitted with the trial court. After going through the relevant material and applying its judicial mind, the learned special judge took cognizance of the offence and decided to proceed towards hearing on the point of charge, thus, at this juncture, it is not felt appropriate to interfere in the matter rather as per the mandate of Sections 226-228 of CrPC, it is imperative upon the learned judge to hear the parties before passing an order framing charge. Thus, in this backdrop and in light of the observations made above, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. 16. The trial court has passed a judicial order taking cognizance of the matter against the petitioner and there are no prevailing circumstances in the factual matrix of the present case that may propel this Court to quash the proceedings in process before the learned court below and disrupt the process of criminal procedure. 17. Looking to the material collected by the agency, a prima facie case is fathomable against the petitioner, thus, in light of the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in the court below qua the petitioner is made out and the court is dissuaded from allowing the instant petition at this stage as the same may stifle the process of securing the ends of justice. 18. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, is hereby dismissed, however, it is open for the petitioner to raise all those objections and grounds which have been raised herein in this petition before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of charge. It is expected from the learned trial court to give ample opportunity to the petitioner for hearing as envisaged under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC and thereafter, the trial judge shall pass a reasoned, speaking order. 19 All pending applications, including the stay application, stand disposed of.