JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocates waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respective parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short "the Cr.P.C.") praying to quash and set aside the order dated 31.05.2019 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Summary Case No.1/2017, as well as the summons issued to the petitioner; further prayer was made for direction to the learned Sessions Court, Vadodara for accepting the Summary Report and for dropping the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR being I-C.R. No.7/2016 lodged before the Vadodara Rural ACB Police Station under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C. Act") qua the present petitioner.

3. It is alleged by the original complainant - respondent no.3 herein that land at Block No.1235 admeasuring 05463 sq. mtrs. was purchased by the respondent no.3 from Chandrakant Parshottam Chavda for a sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and Entry No.5901 was recorded in favour of the respondent no.3. On 22.05.2015, the respondent no.3 had received a notice under section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, wherein the respondent was called upon to verify if there was any objection against mutation of name of one Bhavik Yashwantsingh Chauhan.

3.1 It is stated that the original complainant inquired with the office of Mamlatdar, Vadodara (Rural) about the entry in favour of one Bhavik Yashwantsingh Chauhan and filed objections; however, the original complainant has alleged that the petitioner and accused no.2 had demanded a bribe of Rs.One Lakh from the original complainant for upholding the objections and for setting aside the revenue entry in favour of the third party. It is further alleged that the bribe amount was settled at Rs.75,000/-, however, as the original complainant was not desirous to give bribe money, he lodged an FIR being I-C.R. No.7/2016 with Vadodara City A.C.B. Police Station. Thereafter, a trap was laid on 05.07.2016 at 5.00 p.m.

3.2 It is stated that the petitioner was released on regular bail vide order dated 12.07.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1447/2016, whereby the learned Court below observed that neither the petitioner had demanded any bribe nor any bribe amount was recovered from the petitioner during the trap. It is further stated that pursuant to the detailed investigation, the respondent no.2 filed a Summary Report dated 10.07.2017 bearing Summary No.1/2007 in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the charge-sheet has been filed qua the accused no.2.

3.3 Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent no.3 had filed objections vide Exhibit-10 dated 16.02.2018 challenging the legality of the summary report filed by the respondent no.2 leveling allegations against the police machinery and therefore the respondent no.2 had filed a further report dated 26.04.2018 vide Exhibit-14 denying the allegations made by the original complainant stating the reasons justifying exoneration of the petitioner. It is stated that the original complainant filed further objections against the summary report vide Exhibit-17 praying for rejection of summary report and taking cognizance of the offence alleged qua the petitioner.

3.4 It is stated that vide impugned order dated 31.05.2019, the learned court below had rejected the summary report and directed the respondent no.2 to conduct further investigation by observing that the investigation needs to be done qua the aspect of recovery of cash of Rs.3,12,500/- from the car of the petitioner.

4. Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate along with Mr. Harsh V.Gajjar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below ordering further investigation at the instance of objections preferred by the original complainant is not permissible in eyes of law in as much as a de fac