ORDER : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 05.07.2012, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Doranda P.S. Case No.166 of 2012, by which in the petition for release of the office of the petitioner situated in first floor, house of Phoolwanti Devi, New Alkapuri, Dibdih, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, conditions have been imposed with respect to furnishing of security of Rs.7 lac as well as an undertaking with regard to non disposal of the property. 2. Pursuant to institution of Doranda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2012, the office of the petitioner-company was sealed and an application for release was subsequently filed before the learned court below. 3. Pursuant to the said application, an order was passed on 5.7.2012 by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, wherein the release application was allowed but certain directions were given and being aggrieved with the conditions imposed by the learned court below, the petitioner-company has come up before this Court challenging the said order dated 5.7.2012. 4. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned APP for the State. 5. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that although the office has been released but the terms and conditions, which have been imposed, are so stringent that it would be well-nigh impossible for the petitioner to fulfill such condition. It has been submitted that the learned court below had passed an order for deposit of security from the landlord amounting to Rs.7 lacs, which is arbitrary. It has further been submitted that since Doranda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2012 has already been compromised with the informant, in such circumstances, such harsh condition should not have been imposed by the learned court below. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that considering the allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner of duping several customers in the garb of providing them with ownership of lands, the conditions, which have been imposed do not deserve any interference. 7. The informant of Doranda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2012 had included within its periphery several aggrieved persons, from whom, amounts were taken but neither sale deeds were executed nor ownership of the lands were transferred. 7. The informant of Doranda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2012 had included within its periphery several aggrieved persons, from whom, amounts were taken but neither sale deeds were executed nor ownership of the lands were transferred. Apart from the same, Bariatu P.S. Case No.40 of 2012 had also been instituted by the informant of Doranda P.S. Case No.166 of 2012. It is not known as to how many cases have been instituted against the petitioner and its office bearers and considering the seriousness of the offences and the manner in which several persons have been duped into transferring their hard earned money to the petitioner-company in order to purchase a piece of land, the conditions, which have been laid down in the order dated 5.7.2012, are under the circumstances just and proper. 8. Considering the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.