To sustain a charge of abetment under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove a demand for a bribe and the abettor's active role. Absence of prima facie evidence justifies quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0005 of 2019, dated 23.04.2019, registered at Police Station SV & AC, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter, 'the Act'), on the ground that no case much less under aforesaid provisions of law is made out against the petitioner, especially when it is admitted case of the prosecution that bribe, if any, in the case at hand was received by co-accused ASI Rajinder Pathania.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 20.04.2019, a complaint came to be filed by respondents No.4 to respondent No.3 i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police, SV & AC, Una, District Una, H.P., alleging therein ASI Rajinder Pathania, Incharge, Police Post, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, H.P., is asking for bribe. Complainant, namely Rakesh Kumar, stated that he is running a flower nursery at two places at Ghanari and Daulatpur. In the year 2017, complainant came in contact with one Ms. Pinki Diwakar, with whom certain talks were exchanged inter se them for marriage. Since Ms. Pinki Diwakar and complainant Rakesh Kumar were divorcee, they thought of solemnising marriage inter se them. Complainant, who had come in contact with aforesaid Ms. Pinki Diwakar through Facebook, visited Bareilly on 22.06.2018 and solemnised marriage at Gurudwara, as per Hindu rites and brought Ms. Pinki Diwakar and her son to District Una, H.P., however, it subsequently transpired that Ms. Pinki Diwakar already stood married to some other person from whom she had not taken divorce. In the afore background, complainant Rakesh Kumar sent above named Ms. Pinki Diwakar along with her son to Bareilly. Complainant also instituted some proceedings in the Court at Una, Himachal Pradesh, for cancellation of marriage inter se him and Ms. Pinki Diwakar. Though in afore proceedings, parties compromised the matter inter se them, whereby their marriage was annulled, but yet Ms. Pinki Diwakar along with her son started living forcefully in the house of complainant. Ms. Pinki Diwakar, who was denied maintenance, lodged complaint at Police Post, Daulatpur against complainant Rakesh Kumar, who was summoned at Police Post, Daulatpur and allegedly, ASI Rajinder Pathania started harassing him. Complainant alleged that on 31.03.2019, some money was taken by ASI Rajinder Pathania from him on the pretext of settling the matter. He alleged that on 18.04.2019, ASI Rajinder Pathania called him at Police Post and asked him to pay ₹5,00,000/- so that he is saved from Ms. Pinki Diwakar. Allegedly, aforesaid Police Officer told complainant that in case afore amount is paid Ms. Pinki Diwakar will leave the place. Complainant also alleged that he contacted Mr. Amrik Singh, petitioner herein, a Police Officer, who at one point of time had remained posted near his native place, who asked him to pay ₹10,000/- to ASI Rajinder Pathania for settling the matter. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against ASI Rajinder Pathania as well as present petitioner, namely Amrik Singh, under Sections 7 and 12 of the Act.

3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending the competent Court of law. Since record of learned trial Court stands summoned in the case at hand, trial before the learned Court below has not proceeded further.

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, duly assisted by Mr.