Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 have been preferred for quashing FIR No.308/2008 dated 16.12.2008 registered at District Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh Thana, C.P.S. A.C.B., Jaipur/Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for the offences under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that an FIR bearing No.308/2008 was lodged by one Shri Giriraj Joshi, Advocate (since deceased) of Pratapgarh, wherein certain allegations were levelled against the petitioners regarding conversion of an agricultural land situated in Khasra No.457 and 458 of Pratapgarh, in respect of which the applications were moved by one Babu Lal s/o Dalu Ji Dhobi and others under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'). The allegation was that the Sub Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh vide communication dated 08.08.2003 sought report from the Tehsildar, Pratapgarh, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pratapgarh and Shri Ramesh Kumar Parihar, Draftsman-cum-Surveyor regarding use of the land in the Master Plan. The land use in the Master Plan was apparently residential, and therefore, it was reported that if the land was surrendered, then the Municipal Board had no objection for the purpose of conversion.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pratapgarh accordingly, accepted the surrender of the land of Khatedars Babu Lal and others on 29.02.2004, and thereafter, the procedure under the Act of 1956 was initiated. No-objection Certificate dated 08.01.2004 had already been issued regarding conversion of the land, and after deposition of the regular charges for conversion in accordance with the circular in vogue, the conversion order was passed and pattas were issued to the respective applicants.

4. Out of nine pattas issued by the Municipal Board, six were signed by Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Executive Officer as well as the Chairperson, Smt. Pushpa Devi; and rest of the three were signed by Shankar Rathore, the then Executive Officer and Smt. Pushpa Devi as Chairperson. The circular of the State Government dated 06.07.2002 required the parties to get the requisite development charges deposited by the colonizer in the Municipal Board. Thus, the action of the petitioners resulted into non-deposition of the development charges by the colonizer in the Municipal Board, which resulted into a loss of Rs. 15.45 lacs to the Municipal Board. All the petitioners are holding respective positions of Chairperson, Executive Officer and Draftsman-cum-Surveyor respectively in the concerned Board and were thus, responsible for all the decisions taken.

5. The investigating agency has relied upon the notification dated 01.01.2002 issued by the State Government, whereby the developer was given an option for depositing the development charges with the local authority, so that patta could be issued and the finance for such properties could be materialized. All the aforementioned nine pattas are subject matter of the FIR.

6. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Dutt and Mr. Rakesh Arora appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that continuance of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of law, on the face of the allegations so levelled, as the non-deposition of the development charges by the owners of the land in question before issuance of the patta was not causing any loss to the Municipal Board, as the Municipal Board was not required to carry out any development work and the patta itself carried a mandatory condition that all the development work shall be done at the cost of the patta-holder by his own self.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also stated that the development work had been required to be conducted by the patta-holder by construction of road, laying down of the pipelines, bore tube