RATHORE, J. - (1.) THESE are two writ petitions involving similar questions of law and, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order.
(2.) THE facts of the writ petition No. 6144/2004 are being taken as leading case. THE petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions has prayed for writ, order or direction to quash and set aside FIR Nos. 109/2004 and 110/2004 registered before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and all investigation and proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. The brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, an FIR No. 109/2004 under Sections 7, 8, 13 (1) (a), 13 (d) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with 120 B IPC was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 9. 6. 2004. The allegation in the FIR was that according to source information illegal benefit was to be granted by the petitioner by passing a review order in a revenue matter titled Kamla Devi vs. State. It was mentioned that illegal gratification was being offered on the basis of which the orders were passed wherein first installment was to be received by the petitioner on 4. 6. 2004. It was also mentioned that the petitioner was habitually accepting illegal gratification. With the aforesaid allegations the FIR was got registered against the petitioner as well as Ramnivas Lavania, Ajay Data, Suresh Bansal, Girish Garg, Mahesh Chandra Garg, Kuku Kasana, Ram Pandey and Rambabu. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is well covered within the categories on which FIR can be quashed as mentioned in Bhajan Lal's case. He referred the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. The categories, which are mentioned in the aforesaid case are herewith reproduced as under: (1) Where the allegations made in the first Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, justifying an investigation the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (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 make-out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " After referring the case of Bhajan Lal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence against the petitioner and further there is legal bar to the institution and continuance of legal proceeding against him and malice is writ large on proceedings taken against him which are even otherwise unnatural and inherently improbable.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is legal bar for institution and continuance of legal proceedings in form of FIR and investigation. The FIR No. 109 & 110/2004 are no FIR in the eyes of law but are the result of investigation. The Anti Corruption Bureau alleges that it received a source report on 23. 5. 2004. On that source report facts and evidence was collected based upon which conclusion were reached which were set out in FIR No. 109 & 110 on 9. 6. 2004. Therefore, the FIR becomes post investigational document and is nothing but charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. No FIR was registered under Section 154 Cr. P. C. on information received on 23. 5. 2004 though it was obligatory for Anti Corruption Bureau to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no report of the same was sent forthwith to the competent court as is mandated in Section 157 Cr. P. C. The FIR itself is under the circumstances barred by Section 162 Cr. P. C. ;