ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant Cr. Writ application for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35 of 2002 corresponding to Special Case No. 41 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(d) and read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Circle Inspector and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the First Information Report except that while he was posted as Circle Inspector, mutation of a numbers of plots has been done which were recorded earlier in the Khatian as "Gair Mazuruwa Malik". 4. He has further submitted that in another case i.e. W.P.(Cr.) No. 403 of 2009 Sudhir Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010(2) J.C.R. 642 (Jhr.) the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the entire proceeding against the said Sudhir Prasad who was the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with Patna Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2000 which was of similar nature. 5. Counsel of the vigilance has submitted that there is a direct allegation of the petitioner in the F.I.R. that he being the Circle Inspector, without verifying the report of the Karamchari and in conspiracy with the parties, recommended for mutation of the lands in question. Therefore, criminal proceeding against him cannot be quashed. 5. He has further pointed out that the case cited by the petitioner is absolutely on the different footing as Sudhir Prasad was the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the present petitioner was the Circle Inspector who is the person for verifying the report of the Karamchari. Thus, it cannot be said that both are standing on the similar footing. Furthermore, he has pointed out the aforesaid case is a different case and the petitioner has not annexed the F.I.R. of the said case which can show whether the allegation made against the said Sudhir Prasad are the same as of against the present petitioner in this case at hand. 9. Mr. Furthermore, he has pointed out the aforesaid case is a different case and the petitioner has not annexed the F.I.R. of the said case which can show whether the allegation made against the said Sudhir Prasad are the same as of against the present petitioner in this case at hand. 9. Mr. Verma has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007)14 S.C.C. 497 in case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Laxmi Dhaul in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:- "3. Having heard the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to examine the matter and quash the police investigation, which was pending against the respondent Laxmi Dhaul." 8. The petitioner has not stated in the writ application about the stage of the case i.e. whether the charge-sheet has been submitted or cognizance has been taken or not in this case. 9. From the F.I.R., I find that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner and as the F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizance (sic––cognizable?) offence against the petitioner, I am not inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding which is at the very initial stage at present. Accordingly the Cr. Writ application is dismissed.