The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings on the ground of mala fide or animus of the complainant or prosecution if a prima facie case is made out against the accused.

( 1 ) PETITIONER Ashok Singh Rathore has moved this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing of the investigation alleged to have been initiated by Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Gwalior, on an alleged report dated 13-8-98 by some (one) Suresh Chandra Sharma.

( 2 ) SUBTRACTUM of the petition is that petitioner was working in Transport Department as Sub-Inspector and presently posted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer at Katni. The Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt of Gwalior, registered an offence at Crime No. 81 of 1968 on an alleged allegation of Suresh Chandra Sharma. At the relevant time i. e. in the month of August, 1998, the petitioner was posted in the office of Regional Transport Office, Gwalior, as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (in short A. R. T. O. ). Unfortunately, the relationship of the petitioner got highly strained with the then Regional Transport Officer (in short R. T. O), Gwalior, Shri Virendra Singh Sisodiya so much so that the petitioner had to file a petition (Annex. P/1) before the State Administrative Tribunal as O. A. No. 261/1998 (Ashok Singh Rathore v. State of M. P. and two others) which was filed on 19-3-1998.

( 3 ) OBVIOUSLY due to this bitter relationship between the petitioner and Shri Sisodia, R. T. O. , the petitioner was falsely implicated by Special Police Establishment. When he came to know that first information report in this case was also filed on 13-8-98 under the signature of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, he approached the department for supplying of the copy of the same on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of O. P. Shrivastava v. State of M. P. , (Misc. Cr. Case No. 3137 of 1997) decided on 27-11-98, but the department has not handed over copy of the said report to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that when the application was made about the demand of bribe and such document if in writing amounts to first information report and the subsequent document after alleged trap is merely a statement made by the complainant to the Police Officer during the course of investigation under Section 162, Cr. P. C. and is inadmissible in evidence. Since the petitioner was not assigned any duty at the relevant period to issue conductors' licence, the question of demanding money for issuing such a licence does not arise. There was absolutely no motive for complainant to give bribe to the petitioner. Further complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma is a resident of Morena and in the normal course, he would expect that he would file an application for issuance of a licence before the R. T. O. Morena. The very fact that he chose to file an application at Gwalior smacks of conspiracy. The recovery of the notes is not said to be from the person of the petitioner because it is admitted that at the time of transaction took place 5-6 persons were present in the room. In order to show as to how the petitioner was falsely involved, affidavits of Surat Ram Baghel, Akbar Ali, Abbas Beg Mirja, Moti Lal Dhuvkariya, Ashok Chawla, Kailash Savita, Girdhari Lal and Dr. Dhirendra Singh Chandel (Annex. P/3 to P 10) mostly connected with the transport business have been filed.

( 4 ) CHALLENGING the application, the reply filed on behalf of respondent-State is that after receiving an application on 13-8-98 from complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma, a trap was arranged against the petitioner and the petitioner received bribe from the complainant Suresh Chandra Sharma and bribe money recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner's hands were washed by sodium carbonate solution and the colour of solution turned into pink colour which was sent to the FSL Sagar. Report received that phenolphthalein powder was present in the solution. This fact is sufficient to establish that as per demand of the petitioner, bribe money was accepted by him. The R. T. O. Gwalior vide his letter dated 25-9-98 (Annexs. R/2 and R/3) has intimated that petitioner was assigned the working of