JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged FIR No. 10/2022 for commission of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the IPC registered with Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jammu. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.06.2022 complainant, namely, Irfan Ahmed lodged a written complaint before SSP ACB, Jammu against the petitioners alleging therein that in his capacity as a contractor he was allotted contract of up-gradation of open area along with main road in Trikuta Nagar W. No. 53 Jammu along with main road Near Easy Day Trikuta Nagar Jammu as also for fixing of grating over the drain opposite Kho Wali Gali W. No. 53 Trikuta Nagar Jammu. 3. According to the complainant, he completed the execution of the work and while final payment was pending with Jammu Municipal Corporation, Division-IV, he had to obtain Malba Clearance Certificate for getting the payment released in his favour. It was alleged in the complaint that Malba Clearance Certificate was to be issued by the concerned Corporator and, accordingly, he approached petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the Corporator of W. No. 53 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu for issuance of the certificate. It was further alleged in the complaint that in lieu of issuing the Malba Clearance Certificate petitioner No. 2 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- and directed the complainant to contact her husband-petitioner No.1 for payment of bribe amount. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, pre-verification was conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau, Jammu and the allegations were prima facie found substantiated. Thus, impugned FIR came to be registered against the petitioners. A team of ACB was constituted for laying of trap for apprehending the accused red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe money from the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the trap was successfully laid by the ACB and the tainted money of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the possession of petitioner No. 1 in presence of independent witnesses and it was established that he had demanded and accepted the tainted money on behalf of his wife-petitoiner No. 2 who was functioning as a Corporator at the relevant time. 5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that the contents of the same do not disclose commission of offence by the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that the contents of the same do not disclose commission of offence by the petitioners. It has been contended that the complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioners is malicious, vexatious and frivolous, filed with sole aim of harming the reputation of petitioner No. 2 in politics. It has been contended that there was no requirement of obtaining a Malba Clearance Certificate for release of payment as the works were being executed under the Jammu Smart City Ltd. Project for which no such clearance is required for release of the payment. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon the response of Additional Chief Executive Officer, Jammu Smart City Ltd. pursuant to a query under RTI Act, where under it has been informed that there is no requirement of certificate from the Corporator regarding Malba Clearance for release of payment in respect of the bills. 6. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents in which besides reiterating the facts of the prosecution case, it has been submitted that petitioner No. 1 was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe money of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and it has been established during the investigation of the case that he had done so at the behest of petitioner No. 2 who by share abuse of her official position and after hatching a conspiracy with petitioner No. 2 who happens to be her husband, had demanded and accepted the bribe money in lieu of issuance of Malba Clearance Certificate in favour of the complainant. Thus, according to the respondents cognizable offences are disclosed against both the petitioners and, as such, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the Case Diary produced by the investigating officer. 8. There are specific allegations in the impugned FIR that petitioner No. 1 who happens to be the husband of petitioner No. 2 had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the complainant in lieu of furnishing the Malba Clearance Certificate regarding works executed by the complainant. 8. There are specific allegations in the impugned FIR that petitioner No. 1 who happens to be the husband of petitioner No. 2 had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the complainant in lieu of furnishing the Malba Clearance Certificate regarding works executed by the complainant. The case diary shows that investigating agency laid a trap and during the trap proceedings petitioner No. 1 had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant which was recovered from his possession by the trap team. 9. The complainant in his statement recorded during the investigation of the case has clearly stated that on 16.06.2022 at 1700 hours petitioner No. 2 who happens to be a Corporate made a demand of Rs.10,000/-, when he had approached her for issuance of Malba Clearance Certificate. He has further stated that this demand was made by petitioner No. 2 from him at her residence at Trikuta Nagar, Jammu in presence of one witness, namely, Farooq Ahmed and she further told him to contact her husband-petitioner No. 1 herein for payment of the bribe amount. He has also stated during the investigation that on his request Farooq Ahmed called petitioner No. 1 on his Mobile Cell Phone and latter on both of them met petitioner No. 1 at Trikuta Nagar opposite NIA Office and requested for Malba Clearance Certificate, but petitioner No. 1 demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- for issuance of the said certificate. 10. The CD File further reveals that Farooq Ahmed has also made a statement under Section 161 of CrPC before the investigating officer in which he has confirmed the allegations made by the complainant-Irfan Ahmad in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC. The investigating agency has also collected the Call Data records of the Cell Phones which were under use of petitioner No. 1 and Farooq Ahmed and from analysis of the same, it appears that the two were in contact with each other during the relevant time. 11. From the aforesaid material on record, that has been assembled by the investigating agency during investigation of the case, the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners get fully substantiated. Thus, it cannot be stated that the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners are frivolous or vexatious as has been claimed by the petitioners. 12. From the aforesaid material on record, that has been assembled by the investigating agency during investigation of the case, the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners get fully substantiated. Thus, it cannot be stated that the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners are frivolous or vexatious as has been claimed by the petitioners. 12. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no requirement of Malba Clearance Certificate for release of the payment in favour of the complainant is concerned, the same does not have bearing on the instant case, because the fact of the matter remains that petitioner No. 2 was a Corporator at the relevant time and in that capacity she was in a positoin to issue the Malba Clearance Certificate. Whether or not production of such a certificate was mandatory for release of the payment is of no consequence. Once it is shown that petitioner No.2 was in a position to issue such a certificate and for issuance of the said certificate she had demanded and accepted the bribe amount through her husband-petitioner No 1, the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is made out. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating there from. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, accordingly. Interim order dated 16.03.2023 shall stand vacated. 14. Case Diary be returned to the respondents, through Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG.