ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the vigilance on the interlocutory application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially this application was filed for quashing of the first information report but, subsequently, during pendency of this application, the Court on submission of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120 B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act taken against the petitioner vide order dated 25/10/2010, which has been challenged by way of this interlocutory application. 3. The prayer made in this interlocutory application is hereby allowed. Let this interlocutory application form part of the main application. 4. I.A. No. 1738 of 2012 stands disposed of. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 6. Initially this case was filed for quashing of the first information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 (Special Case No.13 of 2000). Subsequently, the order dated 25/10/2010, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477A 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, was also challenged by way of interlocutory application. 7. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the F.I.R. is that certain pieces of land measuring 113.5 acres, appertaining to Khata No.140, Plot No.1114, situated at Village :Bargaine, P.S.Bariyatu, Ranchi though has been recorded as Gairmajurwa khas land, jamabandi was opened with respect to 103.84 acres of land in the name of the twenty persons. Subsequently, Additional Collector cancelled the Jamabandi which was standing in the name of those persons vide its order passed in Misc. Case No.19 of 1992-93. 8. Further case is that out of the said land measuring 113.5 acres, Krishnanachal Lal Grih Nirman Shahyog Samittee purchased 7.5 acres of land through three sale deeds in the year 1984 from Md. Suleman who claimed his right, title and interest over it through Sada Hukumnama. Case No.19 of 1992-93. 8. Further case is that out of the said land measuring 113.5 acres, Krishnanachal Lal Grih Nirman Shahyog Samittee purchased 7.5 acres of land through three sale deeds in the year 1984 from Md. Suleman who claimed his right, title and interest over it through Sada Hukumnama. After purchasing the land, an application was filed before the then S.D.O., Sri P. N. Rai, in the year 1985 for opening Jamabandi in his name, but that prayer was rejected after holding that Jamabandi can be created in the name of the applicant only when the Jamabandi is first created in the name of the vendor. Thereafter on 14.07.1986, the Secretary of the Grih Nirman Shahyog Samittee filed another application before the Circle Officer, Ranchi, wherein, same prayer was made for opening of Jamabandi in the name of the society. On such application, Case No.16 of 198687 was registered and the Halqua Karamchari as well as the Circle Officer submitted a report recommending therein for opening a Jamabandi in the name of the society. Accordingly, the then S.D.O., Ranchi, passed an order on 20.10.1986, whereby Jamabandi was ordered to be opened in the name of the society. 9. Further case of the prosecution is that the S.D.O. when came to know about the illegality being committed by him by passing an order for opening of Jamabandi in the name of the society, he cancelled the earlier order vide its order dated 27.07.1988. At the same time, direction was given to the L.R.D.C. to make enquiry in this regard. That enquiry was entrusted to Circle Inspector, who, after holding enquiry submitted its report to this petitioner, who simply forwarded it to L.R.D.C., and then L.R.D.C. submitted that report before the S.D.O. Rana Awadhesh Singh, who had succeeded to earlier S.D.O. Namely Sri Pfaful Kumar Singh. On receipt of such report, the S.D.O., did pass an order that Jamabandi had rightly been opened vide order dated 20/10/1986. On passing such order, direction was issued to this petitioner to act upon on that order and issue rent receipt to the land holders. Upon such direction, the petitioner issued rent receipt after passing order relating to mutation in favour of the Society. 10. On passing such order, direction was issued to this petitioner to act upon on that order and issue rent receipt to the land holders. Upon such direction, the petitioner issued rent receipt after passing order relating to mutation in favour of the Society. 10. On such allegation, case was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 (Special Case No.13 of 2000) against a number of persons including this petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 423, 424, 477 A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the Vigilance. After completion of the offence, when chargesheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid was taken, which is underchallenge, in this application. 11. Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is quite apparent from the case of the prosecution that the then S.D.O., first had passed an order for opening of the Jamabandi in the name of the Society but, subsequently, he cancelled that order and passed an order for holding enquiry. That enquiry was entrusted to Circle Inspector, who, after making enquiry, submitted report to this petitioner, who simply forwarded it to the L.R.D.C. and when the L.R.D.C., forwarded the report to S.D.O. Rana Awadhesh Singh, who by the time had succeeded to earlier SDO, passed an order to the effect that the order dated 20/10/1986 had rightly been passed as a result of which Jamabandi got opened in the name of the Society and the petitioner was directed to issue rent receipt and, therefore, it is apparent that this petitioner had only obeyed the command of his superior and, thereby, he cannot be said to have committed offence under which cognizance has been taken. Subsequently, when the petitioner received the complaint, he made enquiry and after holding enquiry, he submitted report recommending therein to cancel the Jamabandi created in the name of the Society. Accordingly, Additional Collector, on 23/06/1993, cancelled the Jamabandi and, thereby, took the possession of the land and, therefore, the Society never took any advantage of the order passed earlier with respect to opening of Jamabandi in its favour. 12. Accordingly, Additional Collector, on 23/06/1993, cancelled the Jamabandi and, thereby, took the possession of the land and, therefore, the Society never took any advantage of the order passed earlier with respect to opening of Jamabandi in its favour. 12. It was further submitted that taking the entire allegation levelled against the petitioner to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either of forgery, cheating or even under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of law. 13. As against this, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that when the Circle Inspector submitted report to this petitioner, he forwarded that report to L.R.D.C. without making any comment over it though the petitioner was quite aware of the fact that the land, which has been transferred, has been a 'Gairmazurwa' land, for which Jamabandi could not be opened in the name of the transferee and, thereby, this petitioner in connivance with the other accused persons including the SDO Rana Awadhesh Singh, who succeeded to earlier SDO Sri P.K.Singh, certainly committed offence under which cognizance has been taken and the stand of the State gets vindicated from the fact that when Jamabandi was cancelled, possession of the land was taken by the State of Bihar and when it was challenged, the order passed by the Officer remained intact. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it has been admitted position that this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was posted as Circle Officer, had forwarded a report of the Circle Inspector to the L.R.D.C., and L.R.D.C. then forwarded the letter to the SDO, who passed an order to the effect that the order passed by his predecessor in office on 20/10/1986 was quite justified and after passing such order, he directed this petitioner to issue rent receipt to the land owner. According to the case of the petitioner, he acted upon it and issued rent receipt. In such situation, I failed to understand as to how this petitioner did connive with the other accused persons to commit offence of cheating as well as forgery. 15. According to the case of the petitioner, he acted upon it and issued rent receipt. In such situation, I failed to understand as to how this petitioner did connive with the other accused persons to commit offence of cheating as well as forgery. 15. Further it is beyond my comprehension as to how offence gets attracted under Section 420 IPC when the petitioner acted upon on the command of his Officer. Further, in the face of the allegation, the petitioner can never be said to have committed offence either under Sections 423 or 424 of the I.P.C. as the offences under the aforesaid sections concern with the dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer, containing false statement of the consideration or concealment of the property which had never been the case of the prosecution. 16. Going further in the matter, I do not find any offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being attracted as the petitioner has never been alleged that he by adopting corrupt practices or illegal means for having pecuniary advantages/ valuable things passed order for issuance of rent receipt and, therefore, essential ingredients constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is completely lacking. 17. Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No.26 of 2000 (Special Case No.13 of 2000), including the order taking cognizance, dated 25/10/2010, is hereby, quashed. 18. In the result, this application stands allowed.