RATHORE, J. - (1.) ADDITIONAL Superintendent of Police. Anti-Corruption Bureau. Kota, on the basis of information furnished by the informant registered an F. I. R. No. 154/1998 under Section 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with 120-B, IPC.
(2.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing F. I. R. No. 145/1998, vis-a-vis, the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations alleged against the petitioner is that the petitioner verified the award on the basis of the record supplied to him by his superiors and as a result of that, it is stated that the amount of award for the same land, for which, the amount of award was already paid to Shri Manna Lal, was paid doubly and the specific allegation against the petitioner if that Jh vks- ih- Jhoklro us tkurs gq, fd iwoz esa Hkqxrku gks pqdk gs] fqj Hkh Hkqxrku djus dh flqkfj'k dha** It is further given out that the computation of the amount of the award was done by the petitioner's predecessor and petitioner never dealt with these proceedings and petitioner only verified the computation of the amount of the award on the basis of the official record, supplied to him by his superior officers and petitioner, vide his letter dated 14. 8. 2002, apprised this fact to the Secretary, Personnel Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. Petitioner also represented before the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur about his innocence and the false implication and further stated in explicit words that the respondent never inquired about the matter with the petitioner, nor extended any opportunity to the petitioner to submit the documents in support of his innocence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that sanction of prosecution, so far as the petitioner is concerned is incorrect in the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove and the F. I. R. at face value is false and deserves to be quashed and set aside vis-a-vis the petitioner by this Court. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner is malicious malafide and with ulterior motive because the petitioner did not commit any offence and was not having any knowledge of the earlier award and subsequent payment and not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner existing on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1), wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the categories of the case, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art. 226 or under Sec. 482 of Cr. P. C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offence to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case falls in the category of No. 3 where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused. ;