ORDER : 1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be allowed with costs and the impugned FIR bearing No. 110/2023 dated 09.05.2023 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh, Police Station C.P.S., Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as Amended 2018) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and any further proceedings in pursuance thereof may also kindly be declared to be illegal and quashed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently working as a Civil Head Constable at Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad (Karnataka). An FIR (Crime No. 121/2022) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366-A, 370 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 came to lodged against nine named accused persons at P.S. Vidyagiri. The present petitioner along with A.S.I. S.M. Naikar, H.C. 1674-P.B. Hiragannavar and W.P.C. Smt. Manjula Parakale were entrusted with the duty to conduct investigation into the matter. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, under the directions of higher officials of the department, visited village Daman, which falls under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, in connection with the investigation of said FIR/Crime No. 121/2022. In pursuance thereof, the Victim girl- ‘A’ and accused person- Arpit were recovered from the house of one Bhawna Joshi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he had demanded bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Bhawana Joshi, failing to which the petitioner threatened to arrest her and her husband Gordar Lal in connection with the FIR (Crime No. 121/2022) registered at P.S. Vidyagiri. 4. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner was not the Investigating Officer of the matter arising out of the said FIR (Crime No. 121/22) and therefore, he neither had any control over the investigation being conducted against the accused persons nor was he in a position to falsely implicate any person in the present case. The petitioner was not the Investigating Officer of the matter arising out of the said FIR (Crime No. 121/22) and therefore, he neither had any control over the investigation being conducted against the accused persons nor was he in a position to falsely implicate any person in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner had demanded bribe from Bhawana Joshi and therefore, he cannot be booked for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case pertaining to FIR Crime No. 121/2022) had already submitted the charge-sheet against Bhawna Joshi and 8 others before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, Karnataka and therefore, it cannot be said that any investigation in connection with the FIR/Crime No. 121/2022 was pending with the petitioner. Thus, no cognizable offence can be sufficiently made out for investigation against the present petitioner. 5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no material evidence is available on record or has been collected by the Investigating Agency to prove that the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act are existing in the present case so as to implicate the present petitioner. While citing the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) 3 SCR 735 : AIR 1992 SC 604 , learned counsel submitted that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of any prima facie material amounts to an abuse of process of law. As such the proceedings in the present case against the petitioner requires to be quashed by this Court by exercising inherent powers enumerated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Reliance was also placed on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Skoda Octavia Skoda Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 5 SCC 795 and B. Jairaj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 . 6. Learned counsel thus, on the strength of above mentioned contentions and authorities cited by him, implored the Court to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and any further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 7. State of U.P. (2021) 5 SCC 795 and B. Jairaj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 . 6. Learned counsel thus, on the strength of above mentioned contentions and authorities cited by him, implored the Court to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and any further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that material collected so far in the present case by the Investigating Agency discloses commission of a cognizable offence as alleged against the present petitioner and, therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise the inherent powers available to it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned FIR. 8. Heard. 9. The written complaint dated 13.02.2023 submitted by the complainant-Bhawna Joshi to the S.I. Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh, reads as under: 10. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under: “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed - Any public servant who: (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant. (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant. (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration.—A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section. Illustration.—A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section. Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section: (i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means. (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.” 11. Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Chattisgarh and Anr. Vs. Aman Kumar Singh and Ors. AIR 2023 SC 1441 , pleased to held that it is desirable that High Courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a First Information Report pertaining to “corruption” cases, specially at the state of investigation. 12. The impugned FIR and the investigation made so far in the present case prima facie clearly indicate that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On a close scrutiny of the material placed before this Court by the Investigating Agency, this Court prima facie finds that after lodging of the FIR by the complainant-Bhawna Joshi, she was handed over a digital tape recorder by the officials of Anti Corruption Bureau with an advice to record the conversation between her and the present petitioner. This was also done with an object to verify the allegation of demand of bribe by the present petitioner. The record of the case indicates that the petitioner made several mobile calls to the complainant on her mobile no. xxxxxxx813. The petitioner though, initially demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant- Bhawana Joshi, however, later on, he agreed to settle the matter at Rs.75,000/-. 13. The digital evidence in the form of voice recorder and the transcript of the conversation made between the petitioner and the complainant are available with the Investigating Agency to prima facie establish that the petitioner demanded or attempted to obtain an undue advantage, as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of duty. 13. The digital evidence in the form of voice recorder and the transcript of the conversation made between the petitioner and the complainant are available with the Investigating Agency to prima facie establish that the petitioner demanded or attempted to obtain an undue advantage, as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of duty. The allegation levelled against the petitioner establishes that the ingredients of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to implicate the petitioner prima facie exist in the present case. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there are no cogent grounds for quashing the FIR in the present case. The present misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. All pending applications also stand disposed of.