ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. The accused in V.C.No.1/2024 of VACB Unit, Kasaragod has filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( 'BNSS ' for Shirt) and the prayer herein is to quash Annexure-3 FIR and all further proceedings thereto including Annexure-6 arrest memo. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Here the FIR was registered on 10.01.2024 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 ('PC Act, 1988' for short) as amended 2018 by the accused, the petitioner herein, based on the FIS given by one Ramanand K.X, alleging that the accused demanded the complainant, to see the accused the way in which he should be seen and to pay money for joining under him to do Ph.D, while the complainant has been awaiting to join the accused for Ph.D, after passing the interview for the same following the procedure. The specific allegation is that on 08.01.2024 and 09.01.2024 accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and compelled the complainant to pay part of the bribe on or before next Friday, otherwise he would be made in a position so that he could not join Ph.D under him. Thereafter, on intimation of this demand by the complainant to the Vigilance, FIR was registered and pre trap mahazar was prepared and the Vigilance party along with the complainant reached the office of the accused at about 13 hours on 10.01.2024. In the recovery mahazar produced as Annexure A5, it has been stated that when he met the accused, the accused told him to sit on the chair and asked 'what about the money?'. Accordingly he replied that he brought Rs.25,000/- and the accused then accepted the same. Thereafter, after counting the notes he took Rs.20,000/- and returned back Rs.5,000/- and soon after he was trapped. Later the said amount of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the accused. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Annexure 5 nothing could be seen to find demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and, therefore, whatever be the other materials, the allegation that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act, as amended 2018, would not lie. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Annexure 5 nothing could be seen to find demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and, therefore, whatever be the other materials, the allegation that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act, as amended 2018, would not lie. Therefore, he pressed for quashment as prayed for. 5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor specifically pointed out the demand mentioned in the FIS as well as in Annexure 5 along with the subsequent statements, including that of the decoy, on the submission that the same would prima facie show the ingredients for the offence under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act 2018. Thus, the quashment prayer would necessarily fail. 6. On perusal of the FIS, it could be seen that the accused had demanded bribe for accommodating the petitioner to do Ph.D course under him. The specific case of the complainant is that on 08.01.2024 and 09.01.2024, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and pressurised him to pay part of the same before Friday. Thereafter he informed the same to the Vigilance, in turn the FIR was registered. It could be gathered further that in Annexure 5 itself it has been specifically stated that when he met the accused on the date of trap, he was asked to sit on a chair in front of him and demanded money. Thereafter, Rs.25,000/- was handed over to the accused and he accepted the same. Subsequently, he returned Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and retained Rs.20,000/-. Thus the said sum of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the accused. In the FIS also similar version to be found. Thus the prosecution materials are in abundance to see that the allegations against the accused are well made out, prima facie. In such a case, quashment of the FIR is found to be totally unwarranted and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Crl.M.C fails and is accordingly dismissed.