Quashing of corruption prosecution refused where prima facie demand and trap material existed, despite no direct recovery and manual breaches.

Criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act were not quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the FIR, charge sheet and witness statements disclosed a demand for bribe and trap proceedings in which the tainted amount was handed over. The absence of direct recovery from the accused was held insufficient, by itself, to terminate the prosecution at the threshold. The Court also treated the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Manual as administrative rather than mandatory, so its breach did not vitiate the case. As prima facie material existed, inherent powers were not exercised to stifle the prosecution, and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds that no recovery was made from the petitioner, that the DVAC Manual procedure was violated, and that the materials disclosed no prima facie case against him.

Analysis: The allegations in the FIR, charge sheet and statements recorded during investigation disclosed that the complainant approached the accused for assessment orders, a bribe was demanded, and the tainted amount was handed over during the trap proceedings. The absence of direct recovery from the petitioner by itself was held not sufficient to quash the prosecution at the threshold. The Court also held that the provisions in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Manual were administrative in nature and not mandatory so as to vitiate the proceedings on their breach. As prima facie materials existed against the petitioner, the inherent power under Section 482 was not to be exercised to stifle the prosecution.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was rejected and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

---