The court affirmed that allegations of misconduct require investigation and cannot be dismissed without scrutiny, emphasizing the role of the investigating agency in determining the truth.

Order :

1. By way of filing this instant S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 394/2017, lodged on 28.12.2017 at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh, Police Station C.P.S, A.C.B. Jaipur, for offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner, an Agriculture Officer, contends that he was assigned an excessive workload of 100 files for physical verification by the Assistant Director (Agriculture). Due to practical constraints, he formally requested a reduction to 15-20 files through a letter dated 22.03.2016. He argues that if he had any corrupt intent, he would have accepted a larger number of files rather than requesting a reduction.

3. He further submits that his reports accurately recorded measurements and explicitly marked certain conditions as "not satisfied" where inspections were not conducted. He asserts that the release of funds was not within his control but was the responsibility of higher officials, particularly the Assistant Director, whose signatures were necessary for fund disbursement.

4. Relying on the guidelines under the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayi Yojana, the petitioner argues that re-verification of 2-5% of the cases was mandatory at the block level in the following financial year. He contends that since the funds were released in 2017 based on reports prepared in 2015- 16, the failure to conduct re-verification was an administrative lapse of senior officials and not his wrongdoing.

5. He also alleges that his case was initially linked with the main accused in Court proceedings but was later separated multiple times. He seeks quashing of the FIR or, alternatively, protection under Section 41(3) CrPC.

6. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

7. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to criminal misconduct, submission of false verification reports, and financial loss to the public exchequer through misuse of power. It is alleged that the petitioner fraudulently obtained receipts and misled agriculturists by falsely promising free pipe installations, even taking thumb impressions from illiterate farmers.

8. The determination of whether these allegations are true or false falls within the domain of the investigating agency. At this stage, based on the submissions made and the presumptions drawn by the petitioner, this Court cannot conclusively hold whether the allegations are false. The veracity of claims, both from the first informant and the petitioner, remains a matter of investigation.

9. The arguments presented by the petitioner, including references to workload constraints, procedural lapses by higher authorities, and compliance with guidelines, do not automatically negate the allegations against him. The fact that funds were released after his verification does not absolve him of potential liability without proper scrutiny.

10.This Court is not conducting a mini-trial to determine guilt or innocence. The investigating agency is the appropriate authority to assess the evidence and determine the petitioner’s role, if any, in the alleged misconduct.

11.In view of the above, no case is made out for quashing the FIR, therefor the instant Misc. Petition having no force is hereby dismissed

12.The stay petition stands dismissed. The investigation shall proceed in accordance with the law.