[t, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HONBLESHMR.N.^HANDRAKAR.JJ Appejjant Petitioner WrltA&eeaiNo,333_gf2010 A.R. Khan, aged about 53 years, S/o Shri Abdul Rasheed Khan, working as Tehsildar, at Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Res^ondents 1. 2. 3. 4. Stete of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Ralpur (CG) Siate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Poii-ce, Antl Corruptton Bureau, SIIaspur, Dlstrict (CG) Deput^ Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, BIIaspur, Distnct (CG) Present: Shri TX, Tiwari, counsel for the appeilant Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on29tilSeptember, 2010) PerDh^fe^dra Af^shra, J The petitioner fsied a writ petition for quashing of the First Information Report and further investigation in pursuance thereof, and the same has been djsrrsissed by the tearned Singie Judoe by the impugned order of Annexure A-il. The petitioner was posted as AdditlonaS TehsiJdar at Katgora, Distt. Korba at the relevant tlme. From perosat of the averments ?n the wrlt petitton, it appears that a comiptaint was iodged agBinst the petitioner by frie complalnant before respondents No. 3 & 4, on the basis of which a trap was laid and the amount of bribe was recovered from his possession. The petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the complaint of Annexure P/1 jodged by one Ghasiyadas against his brother Chamdas (vendor) and Pramod Kumar (purchaser) and two ofriers, was fbn^arded to him by the Sub Divisional Officer for enquiry. During pendency of the enquiry, the complainant and the purchaser entered into an agreement and accordingly, the enquiry proceedings were dropped and order of mutetjon was passed and the land was recorded in the name of purchaser. However, subsequent to passing of the mutation order, a trap was taid on the complaint of the purchaser and on '^... ^^•:../^r;-;...^,l ..;, \1 ^' the basjs ota adeged recovery of bribe amount, the offence has been registered against the petitioner. Leamed counsel fbr the appeSiant submits that the impugned order has been passed without conssdering the above aspect and no elaborate reason has been assigned by the learned Single Judge whlSe dismissing the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record of the writ petition as aSso the impugned order, The petitioner had prayed for quashing of the FIR and further investigatjon agasnst him without fumjshing any other details. Even copy of the FIR had not been filed with the petition. From perusal of the representatjon (Annexure P/5) of the petitjoner to the tnspector General of Police, Economic Offence & Anti Corruption Bureau, it appears that the trap was laid by respondent No.4 on the comptaint of comptainant and the petitioner was aiJegedty caught red handed acceptsng the brjbe money. From the return fited by the respondents/State, st also appears that charge sheet has already been fiied against the petitioner way back in the year 2008. Thus, taking into consJderation the materiai available before the learned . Single Judge with the writ petition for quashing of FIR and further jnvestigation, we are of the opjnion that the writ petition has rightly been dtsmissed by the Jeamed Singte Judge. There ss no ittegajjty or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. The appeal is devoid of any substance, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismjssed at the admission stage jtself. -1 Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^