ORDER : 1. Draft amendment is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being ACB C.R.No.I – 1 of 2016 registered with Rajkot City ACB Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 12, 13(1)(g) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The fact of this case is that the complainant owns a second residential property adjacent to their primary residence. As this secondary property lacked an electricity connection, the complainant submitted an application to the accused's office, seeking a new connection in his father's name. In response, both accused individuals visited the complainant's residence, instructing the complainant to subsequently attend their office in person. During this meeting at the office, accused No. (1) directed the complainant to pay a total sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This amount was comprised of the legitimate application fee and an additional sum identified as an illegal bribery amount. Accused No. (1) instructed the complainant to remit this total amount to accused No. (2). As per the complaint of the complainant, and during a trap operation orchestrated with a video recorder in Rajkot, the complainant engaged in a mobile phone conversation with accused No. (1). During this call, accused No. (1) instructed the complainant to send accused No. (2) to the complainant's home to collect the money. Accordingly, accused No. (2) arrived at the complainant's residence, discussed to the point, and demanded Rs. 10,000/- as the bribe amount. Accused No. (2) then accepted the said amount, returned Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant, and retained Rs. 9,000/-. Panch No. 1 eyewitnessed this exchange of the bribe amount. Subsequent to the acceptance of the money, the complainant and accused No. (2) jointly communicated with accused No. (1) via the complainant's mobile phone, confirming the receipt of the money. This fact has been corroborated by call recordings of conversations held with the accused both prior to and during the bribery trap, as well as by the video recording captured during the trap operation. This fact has been corroborated by call recordings of conversations held with the accused both prior to and during the bribery trap, as well as by the video recording captured during the trap operation. Thus, both accused, acting in collusion with others, misused their official designations as Government Servants and thereby committed a criminal offense. A subsequent investigation conducted at the accused's office regarding the complainant's legitimate application revealed that the actual legal fees payable were Rs. 4,820/-. However, the accused persons did not deposit any fees for the complainant's electricity connection, leading to the accepted amount by accused No. (2) being classified as a bribe. 3.2 Upon the discovery of sufficient evidence indicating that both accused persons have committed offenses punishable under Sections 7 , 12, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a charge sheet, bearing No. 02/2021 and dated 19/03/2021, was filed against them at the A.C.B. Police Station. This determination was made based on the witness statements as well as the documentary/scientific evidence gathered during the investigation of the case. Upon its production before the Honourable Special Court, Rajkot, the matter has been committed as Special Case No. 02/2021 to the said Honourable Court. 3.3 Hence, present petition for quashment of the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal for the petitioner in order to quash the FIR and consequentially filing of charge sheet would argue that the petitioner is innocent and he has not obtained any tainted amount during the trap and it is his junior officer who has accepted Rs.10,000/- and kept Rs.1000/- and therefore, present petitioner since has not accepted any bribe amount, he should not be prosecuted. He would further submit that the petitioner is having blotless career of 28 years and the petitioner has been trapped at the fag end of his service. He would further submit that filing of charge sheet after years together and no compliance of order dated 12.3.2020 indicates that the investigating officer is completely bias towards the petitioner. He would further submit that no departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner for alleged misconduct. He would further submit that two panchas of trap were not regular government employee, which violated the provisions of law. 4.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Panchal for the petitioner prays to allow this petition. 5. He would further submit that no departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner for alleged misconduct. He would further submit that two panchas of trap were not regular government employee, which violated the provisions of law. 4.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Panchal for the petitioner prays to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, learned APP would submit that the trial is substantially progressed and the witness who has given prosecution permission has been examined. He would further submit that the investigating officer has also been examined and trapping officer Mr. JG Zala has expired. Taking this court through the investigation report, he would submit that spectrography report obtained by the investigating officer during the investigation support the case of the prosecution, as the voice sample of the petitioner has been matched. He would further submit that not only that in a transcript, which is recorded during the trap panchnama, it is specifically mentioned that the present petitioner has not only demanded the money, but also accepted the same and that amount being unaccounted prima facie established that it was a bribe amount. He would further submit that since the trial is at the fag end, this Court may not exercise the power. 5.1 Upon such submission, learned APP requests to dismiss the petition. 6. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.2. 7. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, at the outset, I may note that the trial is substantially progressed. Important witnesses are already examined and the charge has already been framed. It appears that the petitioner has not resisted framing of the charge nor has filed discharge application before the learned trial Court. Looking to the very fact, I am of the opinion that present petition, at this juncture, is not survived. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, who is Deputy Engineer, PGVCL, had demanded Rs.10,000/- through accused No.2 for giving fresh new electric connection in favour of the complainant. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 directed the complainant to approach accused No.2 and therefore, the complainant approached the accused No.2, who has accepted the bribe amount. According to the prosecution, the accused No.2 went to the house of the complainant and demanded amount of Rs.10,000/- and after accepting the same from the complainant, he kept Rs.9000/- and refunded Rs.1000/- to the complainant. According to the prosecution, the accused No.2 went to the house of the complainant and demanded amount of Rs.10,000/- and after accepting the same from the complainant, he kept Rs.9000/- and refunded Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Later on, the accused No.2 after accepting the bribe amount, talked with the accused No.1 and confirmed that bribe amount has been received. The talking between the accused Nos.1 and 2 is recorded in the video recorder, which support the case of the prosecution. It also appears that the accused has not paid amount of Rs.4820/-, which the complainant was required to legally pay in the office of the PGVCL for getting new electric connection despite having accepted Rs.9000/- as bribe amount. 8. Moreover, charge sheet papers indicates that voice spectography report supports the case of the prosecution, which prima facie proves the trap panchnama, whereby, it is mentioned that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe amount. 9. In case of State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Aman Kumar Singh with Uchit Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh , 2023 (6) SCC 559 , the Hon’ble Apex Court stated that corruption is malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. Relevant para is 49, which reads as under:- “49. We preface our discussion, leading to the answers to the above two questions, taking note of a dangerous and disquieting trend that obviously disturbs us without end. Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly 'corruption'. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. It is not now limited to the spheres of activities of governance; regrettably, responsible citizens say it has become a way of one's life. Indeed, it is a matter of disgrace for the entire community that not only on the one hand is there a steady decline in steadfastly pursuing the lofty ideals which the founding fathers of our Constitution had in mind, degradation of moral values in society is rapidly on the rise on the other. Not much debate is required to trace the root of corruption. Not much debate is required to trace the root of corruption. 'Greed', regarded in Hinduism as one of the seven sins, has been overpowering in its impact. In fact, unsatiated greed for wealth has facilitated corruption to develop like cancer. If the corrupt succeed in duping the law enforcers, their success erodes even the fear of getting caught. They tend to bask under a hubris that rules and regulations are for humbler mortals and not them. To get caught, for them, is a sin. Little wonder, outbreak of scams is commonly noticed. What is more distressing is the investigations/inquiries that follow. More often than not, these are botched and assume the proportion of bigger scams than the scams themselves. However, should this state of affairs be allowed to continue- Tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing them appropriately is the mandate of the P.C. Act. "We the people", with the adoption of our Constitution, had expected very high standards from people occupying positions of trust and responsibility in line with the Constitutional ethos and values. Regrettably, that has not been possible because, inter alia, a small section of individuals inducted in public service for 'serving the public' appear to have kept private interest above anything else and, in the process, amassed wealth not proportionate to their known sources of income at the cost of the nation. Although an appropriate legislation is in place to prevent the cancer of corruption from growing and developing, wherefor maximum punishment by way of imprisonment for ten years is stipulated, curbing it in adequate measure, much less eradicating it, is not only elusive but unthinkable in present times. Since there exists no magic wand as in fairy tales, a swish of which could wipe out greed, the Constitutional Courts owe a duty to the people of the nation to show zero tolerance to corruption and come down heavily against the perpetrators of the crime while at the same time saving those innocent public servants, who unfortunately get entangled by men of dubious conduct acting from behind the screen with ulterior motives and/or to achieve vested interests. The task, no doubt, is onerous but every effort ought to be made to achieve it by sifting the grain from the chaff. The task, no doubt, is onerous but every effort ought to be made to achieve it by sifting the grain from the chaff. We leave the discussion here with the fervent hope of better times in future.” 9.1 In para 74, the Hon’ble Apex Court suggested to maintain hands-off approach and not quash FIR in the very case at the investigation case. Said para reads as under:- “74. Finally, following the above, what is of substantial importance is that if criminal prosecution is based upon adequate evidence and the same is otherwise justifiable, it does not become vitiated on account of significant political overtones and mala fide motives. We can say without fear of contradiction, it is not in all cases in our country that an individual, who is accused of acts of omission/commission punishable under the P.C. Act but has the blessings of the ruling dispensation, is booked by the police and made to face prosecution. If, indeed, in such a case (where a prosecution should have been but has not been launched) the succeeding political dispensation initiates steps for launching prosecution against such an accused but he/she is allowed to go scot-free, despite there being materials against him/her, merely on the ground that the action initiated by the current regime is mala fide in the sense that it is either to settle scores with the earlier regime or to wreak vengeance against the individual, in such an eventuality we are constrained to observe that it is criminal justice that would be the casualty. This is because, it is difficult to form an opinion conclusively at the stage of reading a first information report that the public servant is either in or not in possession of property disproportionate to the known sources of his/her income. It would all depend on what is ultimately unearthed after the investigation is complete. Needless to observe, the first information report in a disproportionate assets case must, as of necessity, prima facie, contain ingredients for the perception that there is fair enough reason to suspect commission of a cognizable offence relating to "criminal misconduct" punishable under the P.C. Act and to embark upon an investigation. Needless to observe, the first information report in a disproportionate assets case must, as of necessity, prima facie, contain ingredients for the perception that there is fair enough reason to suspect commission of a cognizable offence relating to "criminal misconduct" punishable under the P.C. Act and to embark upon an investigation. Having regard to what we have observed above in paragraph 49 (supra) and to maintain probity in the system of governance as well as to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to "corruption" cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong- arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act offence. Majorly, the proper course for the high courts to follow, in cases under the P.C. Act, would be to permit the investigation to be taken to its logical conclusion and leave the aggrieved party to pursue the remedy made available by law at an appropriate stage. If at all interference in any case is considered necessary, the same should rest on the very special features of the case. Although what would constitute the special features has necessarily to depend on the peculiar facts of each case, interference could be made in exceptional cases where the records reveal absolutely no material to support even a reasonable suspicion of a public servant having intentionally enriched himself illicitly during the period of his service and nothing other than mala fide is the basis for subjecting such servant to an investigation. We quite appreciate that there could be cases of innocent public servants being entangled in investigations arising out of motivated complaints and the consequent mental agony, emotional pain and social stigma that they would have to encounter in the process, but this small price has to be paid if there is to be a society governed by the rule of law. While we do not intend to fetter the high courts from intervening in appropriate cases, it is only just and proper to remind the courts to be careful, circumspect and cautious in quashing first information reports resting on mala fide of the nature alleged herein.” 10. To be noted that the petitioner has filed this petition at threshold of filing FIR. At initial stage, where cognizable offence is disclosed in FIR, whether investigation can be thwart by exercising inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2020 SCC Online SC 958, in para 41 has held as under :- "41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed , AIR 1945 PC 18 , the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat , (2001) 7 SCC 659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere." 11. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B. Bhajanlal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon’ble Apex Court opined note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Para 103 is important, which reads as under:- “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. Under the circumstances, it seems that the petitioner has failed to make out the case for quashment of the FIR. The contention raised by learned advocate for the petitioner can be a good defence, but cannot be examined at this juncture, particular, when the trial is substantially progressed and reached at the fag end. 13. In the result, present petition fails and stands dismissed. Notice discharged.