Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – The present writ application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report, bearing Sugauli Police Station Case No. 242 of 2020, corresponding to Special Case No. 11 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the 'Act'.

2. The brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was posted as Inspector of Police at Sugauli Police Station, in the district of East Champaran, at Motihari, since January, 2019. It has been stated that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case by the informant in connivance with the concerned police officials.

3. The First Information Report, in question, was lodged on the complaint of the informant before the Superintendent of Police, alleging therein that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as bribe from the informant for giving supervision/case diary notes against the concerned accused of Sugauli Police Station Case No. 191 of 2020, or else he would conclude the case lodged by the uncle of the informant as false case.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.04.2020, a person was caught on a motorcycle with illicit liquor and the Station House Officer (petitioner) misused his power and released that person illegally. The petitioner sent a report to the Superintendent of Police in this regard, which, later on, got viral in public at large. Despite taking action against the said Station House Officer (petitioner), the Superintendent of Police issued a transfer order, by which the petitioner was transferred to Chakia Police Station. Before his transfer, the petitioner was working on a case, which was instituted by one Amiri Lal Sah, who is the father of the present informant, bearing Sugauli Police Station Case No. 161 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 323/384/379 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code against Mukesh Sah and others, and in the said case, the accused persons got bail and then Rameshwar Sah, uncle of the informant, again lodged First Information Report, bearing Sugauli Police Station Case No 191 of 2020, against the same accused person for the same offences. The petitioner contends that since the First Information Report, bearing Sugauli Police Station Case No 191 of 2020 appeared to be false, so he refused to interfere and proceed in the matter. It is further contended that thereafter, the informant, in connivance with the concerned police officials, lodged the present false and fictitious First Information Report against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner further argues that neither the telephonic communication with regard to the alleged demand of bribe nor any recovery of any incriminating material was made from his conscious possession and merely on the allegation of private person, the authorities, i.e local police, without any jurisdiction suo motu proceeded in the matter without taking any help from the vigilance department, who are scientifically expert in such type of matter.

6. Learned Counsel thus submits that the police does not have the authority to investigate into offence where the offence discloses the commission of offences under the Act, as they do not have scientific measures to unravel the truth or collect evidences. The petitioner is Inspector of Police and the present First Information Report has been lodged on the complaint of a private person. He further submits that the First Information Report does not disclose commission of offence under Section 7(a) of the Act. The petitioner was not present at the spot and, therefore, there was no attempt by him to obtain money. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of C. M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779.

7. Learned Counsel further argued that before lodging of the First Information Report, a preliminary enquiry was not held, as decided by the