The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations must prima facie constitute the offence and make out a case against the accused, and the court has the authority to quash the FIR and investigation if the allegations do not disclose the commission of the offence.

Rakesh Saksena, J.

1. Since in both the cases Petitioners have sought quashing of the first information report dated 6-1-2010 leading to the registration of Crime No. 2/2010 and its investigation by Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Bhopal, this order shall govern the disposal of both the cases.

2. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal registered the aforesaid first information report on 6-1-2010 against the Petitioners under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to F.I.R, complainant Rashmi Pathak submitted a written report to Lokayukt, Bhopal on 12-5-2009. After verification, Special Police registered the F.I.R. containing accusation that Dev Vrat Mishra, the then DSP Lokayukt, Jabalpur purchased house No. 945 situated at Gulab Singh ward, Jabalpur from one N. Vijayan. In the sale deed, area of the house was shown as 1736 sq.ft. and the stamp duty of Rs. 74,025/- was paid. On verification, it was revealed that the area of the house was in fact 2454 sq.ft. On the sale deed, stamp duty of Rs. 1,03,459/- ought to have been paid whereas Dev Vrat Mishra in conspiracy with Sub-Registrar Surendra Kori paid the stamp duty only of Rs. 74,025/-. On verification from the Public Works Department, Jabalpur, it was found that the constructed area of the three floors of the house was also mentioned less in the sale deed with a view to evade the requisite stamp duty payable on the sale deed. After declaring the value of Rs. 7 lacs, the registration and other fees were paid only to the tune of Rs. 74,025/- whereas according to prevalent guidelines issued by Collector, Jabalpur in the year 2002 total stamp duty and registration fee etc. Rs. 1,03,459/- were required to be paid. Thus, accused Dev Vrat Mishra and Sub-Registrar Surendra Kori deliberately caused financial loss of Rs. 29,434/- to State. Dev Vrat Mishra, thus, obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 29,434/-. According to first information report, Dev Vrat Mishra, the then DSP Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt entered into conspiracy with Surendra Kori, the then Sub-Registrar and by abusing his position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage and caused loss to State Exchequer of Rs. 29,434/-, therefore, both the accused committed offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Dev Vrat Mishra contended that the aforesaid first information report was registered by Special Police Establishment on being referred by Lokayukt, Bhopal as complainant Smt. Rashmi Pathak had submitted a complaint to Lokayukt making number of allegations against him. It was alleged that Dev Vrat Mishra was illegally posted as DSP SPE Lokayukt in conspiracy with the then Superintendent of Police Lokayukt, Sagar in contravention of "Madhya Pradesh Police Executive (Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 and that he had collected huge wealth disproportionate to known source of his income. He had purchased a splendid house worth Rs. 20 lacs by showing its price only Rs. 7 lacs. This complaint of allegations was filed by Rashmi Pathak in Form-I described under M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt (Investigation) Rules, 1982. Learned Counsel submitted that FIR was registered mechanically without applying the mind that no ingredients of the offence under which the first information was registered were present. When the complaint was made to Lokayukt, he had to make an enquiry and submit his report to the competent authority under Section 12 of M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (for brevity referred to as "Lokayukt Adhiniyam"). In view of the provision of Section 8(c) of Lokayukt Adhiniyam, Lokayukt was debarred from initiating the enquiry in the present case because the complaint by Rashmi Pathak was made to him after ex