JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The respondent no. 2 informant made a complaint against respondent no. 3 before Dy. S.P. Vigilance Office, Solan stating that he is a Civil contractor with BSNL. Paramjeet Singh- respondent no. 3 demanded money for releasing the security of Rs. 1,40,000/-pertaining to Ayurvedic Dispensary, Barog. He was asking that the security would be released on the clearance of the previous transaction. The informant was undertaking the work of the CDPO building at Dharampur. Paramjeet was not permitting the informant to lay the slab. He was saying that permission could be granted only on the clearance of the previous transaction. Paramjeet demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as a bribe. The informant had a recording of the demand made by Paramjeet; hence, he prayed that appropriate action be taken.

2. The police registered the FIR and set up a trap. Currency notes worth Rs. 1,00,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the informant was asked to signal the police on demand. Shadow witness was associated. Paramjeet was caught red-handed with the money. His hands were washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink. The solution was sent to FSL for analysis. He was arrested. The police conducted the investigation and seized the recording of the conversation. The call detail record was also taken in possession. The report of FSL was received. The informant subsequently made a supplementary statement stating that Ajeet Kumar, the present petitioner was also present at the time when the demand for the bribe was made and Paramjeet Singh had told the informant that the money could be paid to the present petitioner in his absence because both accused Paramajit and the petitioner were the same. The voice in the recording was identified to be that of the present petitioner as per the analysis made in the laboratory; hence, the police prepared a challan and presented it before the Court.

3. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 03.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Solan against the petitioner in case No. 1-S/7 of 2022 titled State of H.P. versus Paramjeet Singh and Ors. It was asserted that no complaint was ever made against the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused belatedly. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner had misused his position. He only tried to settle the dispute between the respondents no. 2 and 3. This was considered to be against the present petitioner. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The informant also did not question the credibility of the petitioner. The conversation placed on record does not implicate the petitioner. The informant Chander Mohan never interacted with the petitioner regarding the bribe. The petitioner could have been cited as a witness but the prosecution erred in arraying him as an accused. No witness stated that the petitioner facilitated Paramjeet Singh in getting the bribe. Prosecution sanction was also not proper as per the law and it is a mere reproduction of the version of the I.O. There is no certificate that the memory card was not tampered with; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge, Solan be set aside.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and the petitioner having not approached the Court without exhausting the remedies available to him. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. The contents of the FIR were reproduced. It was asserted that the petitioner had participated in the conversation of demand for a bribe. He being the controlling officer of Paramjeet Singh, abused his official position by helping him in obtaining the bribe. The prosecution sanction is proper. Challan has been prepared and presented before learned Trial Court against the petitioner and other