ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 33 of 2002 (Special Case No. 38 of 2002) including the order dated 18.11.2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The facts, giving rise to this application, are that certain land measuring total area of 10.95 areas, appertaining to khata No. 360, Plot No. 1260 situated in village Hundru, Ranchi was recorded in the record of right as 'gair mazarua khas.' However, in the year 1970-71, two rent receipts were issued against that land in the name of Samu Sao, when his name was recorded in Register II. Subsequently, after the death of Samu Sao his son Chandan Sao inherited the property and then his name was mutated against the land in question by the then Circle Officer, Narayan Murti on the recommendation made by this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Circle Inspector. In course of time, Chandan Sao sold 0.49 and 0.59 acres of land separately to Mahavir Kashi, the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperation Society in the year 1988-91, who got his name mutated against the said land. Mahavir Kashi sold the land to ten persons. Thereafter, the then Circle Officer got their names mutated against the lands purchased by them and, accordingly, Register II was opened in their names. 4. Since the hind initially had been recorded as 'gair mazarua khas' transfers of said land to different persons were considered to be illegal and therefore, a case was lodged by the Inspector, Vigilance against several persons, including this petitioner on the allegation that all those persons have committed offence of forgery, cheating and misappropriation. 5. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioner, vide order dated 18.11.2009 which is under challenge. 6. Mr. 5. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioner, vide order dated 18.11.2009 which is under challenge. 6. Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had moved before this Court for quashing of the FIR, vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 230 of 2010 which was dismissed but the petitioner hereby has challenged the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance. 7. It was further submitted that though initially the land was recorded as 'gair mazarua khas' rent receipts with respect to that land were issued in favour of Samu Sao when his name was entered in Register II. After his death, his son Chandan Sao, inherited the property and then on the recommendation made by this petitioner, the then Circle Inspector got the name of Chandan Sao mutated against that land and even Register II was opened in his name and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either of cheating forgery or misappropriation nor he can be said to have committed offence of criminal misconduct as the petitioner had simply made recommendation for mutating the name of the person whose father's name was recorded in Register II and thereby the petitioner cannot be held responsible for commission of any offence either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. It was further submitted that the petitioner can not be instrumental in getting the rent receipts issued in the name of Samu Sao after his name was entered into Register II as at that point of time the petitioner had never been posted as Circle Inspector. Only, when the petitioner did find that the name of the father of Chandan Sao is recorded in Register II, the petitioner made recommendation for mutating the name of Chandan Sao against the land in question. 9. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that admittedly the land in question was recorded as 'gair mazarua khas' which land had never been settled to Samu Sao, still Samu Sao managed to get the rent receipts issued in his favour against that land and then in connivance with the officials of the Halka Karamchari, he got his name mutated against that land in question. After his death, his son Chandan Sao inherited the property. After his death, his son Chandan Sao inherited the property. He also in connivance with this petitioner as well as Government Officials got that land mutated in his name but the petitioner without verifying the matter as to how the name of Samu Sao was recorded in Register II, made recommendation for mutating the land in question in the name of his son Chandan Sao and thereby the petitioner committed offence of forgery misappropriation and misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. In the circumstances, the question does arise as to whether any offence under which cognizance has been taken is made out? 11. The same issue fell for consideration in a case of Narayan Murti vs. State of Jharkhand through S.P. Vigilance, 2013 (4) JCR 69 (Jhr) and this Court after taking notice of the decision rendered in a case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (4) East Cr C 6 (SC): 2009 (4) JLJR (SC) 75, did find that in the facts and circumstances, no offence either of forgery or criminal breach of trust cheating is made out. 12. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case applies in this case as the petitioner, as per the case, made recommendation for mutating the name of Chandan Sao against the land inherited by him from his father Samu Sao whose name had been recorded in Register II and thereby question of committing offence of forgery by this petitioner never arise. 13. Similarly, for the reason mentioned in the case of Narayan Murti, no offence is made out either under Section 423 or under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Further, in the facts and circumstances, in absence of any foundational fact constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 33 of 2002 (Special Case No. 38 of 2002) including the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. 16. In the result, this application stands allowed. Petition allowed.