JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - The present application by applicant Suraj Mohan Mathur is under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the report anncxure 6 (which does not disclose the date of its submission) submitted by the Vigilance Department to Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow, U.P. which has also been taken as the F. 1. R. in the matter, and that meanwhile arrest of the applicant and further proceedings initiated by the vigilance department be stayed during the pendency of the present application. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the opposite parties, with the permission of the Court, at this admission stage, that the impugned vigilance report annexure 6 or for that matter the F.I.R. cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the matter has not yet come before the court. This point was initially heard but before coming to any conclusion it was thought proper to call upon the opposite parties to file their counter-affidavit. The required counter affidavit and the follow up rejoinder affidavit of the applicant have been duly filed. 3. The first point is the same which was raised as preliminary objection as to whether in exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. this Court can quash the vigilance report in question which equates with the F.I.R. The second question of course would be as to whether the vigilance report or the F.I.R. ought to be quashed. 4. On the first point the following decisions can be considered beneficial: Empror v. Khwaza Nazir Ahmad, A.I.R. (32) 1945 P.C. 18 wherein at page 22 their Lordships held as under: * * * (Editor's note-'The observations of the Privy Council are not reproduced). 5. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 (F.B.) their Lordships held in para 6 as under: * * * * (Editor's note-The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 6. In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1146 following the law Laid down in above two cases their Lordships held as tinder: * * * (Editor's note--The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 7. In Dr. 6. In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1146 following the law Laid down in above two cases their Lordships held as tinder: * * * (Editor's note--The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 7. In Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1754 at p. 1755 in para 2 their Lordships held as under: * * * (Editor's note.- The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 8. In Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2229 in para 2 their Lordships held as under: * * * (Editor's note-The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 9. In State of Bihar and another v. J.A.C. Saldana and others, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 326 at page 337 in para 25 their I nrdships held as under: * * (Editor's note-The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 10. In Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and another, A.I.R. 1982 Punj. and Har. (F.B.) at pp. 378 to 382 paras 12 to 20 their Lordships held as order: * * * (Editor's note-The observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are M reproduced). 11. In the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 949 in paras 64 and 65 their Lordships observed as under: * * * (Editor's note-The observations of the Supreme Court are not reproduced). 12. Thus the legal position stands well crystallised and is understandable from the above decisions on the point. Applying those principles to the facts of the present case, the only point to be considered is as to whether the vigilance report, annexure 6, which is equated as F.I.R. (though is not actual F.l.R. as yet) discloses any offence or not. It would, therefore, be necessary to go through the contents of the said vigilance report, which particular document is the vigilance report is again a matter of dispute, as appearing from the affidavits of the parties. According to the applicant the said vigilance report or F . I . R. on the basis of which investigation is proceeding against him is annexure 6 which purports to be sent by Police Adhikshak. Uttar Pradesh, Satarkata Adhisthan, 857, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Parikshetra to Sachiv, Uttar Pradesh Shashan, Nagrik Suraksha Anubhag. Lucknow. According to the applicant the said vigilance report or F . I . R. on the basis of which investigation is proceeding against him is annexure 6 which purports to be sent by Police Adhikshak. Uttar Pradesh, Satarkata Adhisthan, 857, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Parikshetra to Sachiv, Uttar Pradesh Shashan, Nagrik Suraksha Anubhag. Lucknow. It may be noted that in the said annexure 6 the date of sending the said report is not mentioned. 13. In Para 7 of the counter affidavit of Krishna Mohan Chauhan, Inspector, U.P. Vigilance, Kanpur it is stated that annexure 6 bled by the applicant is a false and fabricated document inasmuch as it is not the report of the vigilance department, meaning thereby that the said report was never sent by the vigilance department to the Secretary U.P. Government, Lucknow. According to him the report of the Vigilance department on the basis of which investigation is proceeding against the applicant is annexure 1 to the said counter affidavit and is dated May 24, 1978, which was sent by Ram Du]are Pandey, Nirdeshak Satarkata Adhistan Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to Ayukt Ewam Sachiv Satarkata Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh Shashan, Lucknow. However, in para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it is mentioned that the report annexure 6 was obtained from the court of Fatehpur and it was not a fabricated document. Without entering into the merits of the issue as to which vigilance report is the real basis of investigation, suffice it to say that in the matter, prima facie, the contention of the opposite parties as to which report is being proceeded with in investigation has to be accepted at this stage. Accordingly the contents of the said annexure 1 of the counter affidavit would be the relevant contents for the disposal of the present application. 14. It is pointed out on behalf of the applicant that certain charges regarding certain irregularities etc. Accordingly the contents of the said annexure 1 of the counter affidavit would be the relevant contents for the disposal of the present application. 14. It is pointed out on behalf of the applicant that certain charges regarding certain irregularities etc. which were alleged to have been committed by the applicant during that period 1973-74 in connection with the visit of the Prime Minister to village Hinota district, Fatehpur were the subject matter of open enquiry, in which he too, had taken part and it had finally ended in his favour and he was exonerated of all the charges for that period and through letter dated February 19, 1981, annexure 4, sent by the Maha Samadeshta, Home Guards, Uttar Pradesh to the applicant his integrity for the year 1973-74 was certified and his services were regularised by order dated January 12, 1982 w.e.f. December 12. 1980. vide Annexure 5. The grievance (-f the applicant is that he was being harassed unnecessarily by re-starting the investigation on charges of the same year 1973-74, through vigilance report annexure 6. It is further argued that even if the subject matter of investigation he taken as vigilance report dated May 24, 1978, as now contended by the opposite-parties, it still relates to the period 1973-74 about which the applicant had already been exonerated and as such the second investigation on the same charges is nothing but mala fide and could not be allowed to produce. In para 6 of the counter affidavit 6 specific instances have been quoted and it is averred that the previous enquiry related to these 6 items only. It is further vouched therein that the present investigation has nothing to do with those 6 items which could not be substantiated and accordingly the services of the applicant were regularised. However, it is further vouched in para 7 of the counter affidavit that the present investigation relates to different charges covered by report dated May 24, 1978 (annexure 1 to the counter affidavit) of the vigilance department submitted to the State Government. A perusal of the said Annexure 1 does indicate that prima facie the allegations contained therein do make out an offence which is alleged to have been committed by the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that the present investigation against him is being conducted for charges under Sections 409. A perusal of the said Annexure 1 does indicate that prima facie the allegations contained therein do make out an offence which is alleged to have been committed by the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that the present investigation against him is being conducted for charges under Sections 409. 4771120-B, I.P. Code and Section 5(l), Anti Corruption Act. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no allegation that the applicant was directly responsible for the alleged offences because many of the offences like preparation of muster rolls and disbursement of money were to be performed by other officials and not by the applicant. However, the charge under Section 120-B, is also there and the contention of the opposite-parties is that the applicant had conspired with others and facilitated commission of the alleged offence. 15. Looking to the overall circumstances of the case as appearing from the affidavit, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit, l do not think any interference in the matter is c~l.led for by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This application is accordingly 'dismissed.