JUDGMENT : Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents Vigilance. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance Case No.26 of 2000 [Special Case No. 13 of 2000] 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, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the F.I.R. Is that a jamabandi was opened with respect of 103.84 acres of land, out of 113.5 acres, appertaining to Khata No.140, Plot No.1114,situated at Village:Bargaine, P.S. :Bariyatu, Ranchi in the name of twenty persons though it was recorded as gairmazurwa khas land. 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. 4. 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 1986-87 was registered and the Halka Karamchari as well as the then Circle Officer submitted a report recommending therein for opening of Jamabandi in the name of the Society. Accordingly, Prafulla Kumar Singh, who, at that time, was the S.D.O., Ranchi, passed an order on 21.10.1986, whereby Jamabandi was ordered to be opened in the name of the Society. 5. Accordingly, Prafulla Kumar Singh, who, at that time, was the S.D.O., Ranchi, passed an order on 21.10.1986, whereby Jamabandi was ordered to be opened in the name of the Society. 5. Further case of the prosecution is that the then S.D.O. when came to know that he has committed illegality 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 on the basis of the report submitted by the then Circle Officer and at the same time, direction was given to the L.R.D.C. to make enquiry in this regard. That enquiry was entrusted to the then Circle Inspector, who after holding enquiry, submitted his report with an opinion that Jamabandi be not opened, to the then Circle Officer Naresh Kumar, who forwarded it to the then L.R.D.C. According to the allegation, the petitioner forwarded it to the then S.D.O., Ramanand Prasad Singh, who made endorsement over the margin of the order sheet of not opening of the Jamabandi. That page, according to the, allegation made against the petitioner, was removed by this petitioner and after removing the page, the matter was again placed before the successor-in-interest of the S.D.O., Kumar Rana Abadhesh. On receipt of the report, he passed an order that Jamabandi had rightly been opened. In such situation, rent receipts were issued in the name of the Society after its name was ordered to be mutated. 6. 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, 477A 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 investigation, when chargesheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken, which is under challenge, in this application. 7. After completion of the investigation, when chargesheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken, which is under challenge, in this application. 7. When the cognizance of the order was taken that order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 512 of 2010, which application was disposed of vide order dated 29/08/2014, by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues, which have been raised in the said application, during trial, keeping in view that the allegations against the petitioner was that he had removed one page from the file, wherein report had been submitted that it is not a fit case where Jamabandi can be opened in the name of the purchaser. 8. In view of the said order, an application under Section 227 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, was filed before the Court below, which was rejected vide order dated 02/12/2014, whereby prayer for discharge was rejected. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 9. Mr. B.M.Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the prosecution that when the matter was placed before the then SDO for the first occasion, the then SDO when came to know that wrongly an order had been passed for opening of the Jamabandi in the name of the Society, he cancelled his earlier order vide order dated 27/07/1988, on the basis of the report submitted by the then Circle Officer and at the same time direction was given to the LRDC to make inquiry in this regard. Then Circle Inspector after holding inquiry submitted his report with an opinion that Jamabandi cannot be opened in the name of the Society as the plot was Gairmajurwa. Then Circle Inspector after holding inquiry submitted his report with an opinion that Jamabandi cannot be opened in the name of the Society as the plot was Gairmajurwa. When the matter was placed before the SDO, he put endorsement over the margin of the order sheet of not opening of the Jamabandi, but according to the case of the prosecution, that page was removed by the petitioner but there has been no evidence to this effect, rather it is being presumed that it was the petitioner who had removed the said page whereby endorsement was made by the then SDO for not opening of the Jamabandi and in that event, the petitioner did file the application for discharge, which was rejected wrongly as there does not appear to be any evidence to the effect that the petitioner was the person, who had removed the aforesaid page. 10. In this regard, it was further submitted that after four years the then SDO, during investigation, did produce the photocopy of the said page upon which endorsement was made by the SDO for not opening of the Jamabandi. It is quite surprisingly as to why he had kept that page with him and that to the same was produced after four years and under the circumstances, it is a fit case for discharge of the petitioner. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into account the allegation put forth against the petitioner, it does appear that the petitioner has been alleged to have removed the page where endorsement had been made by the then SDO for not opening of the Jamabandi in the name of the Society. However, dispute is being raised that it was not the petitioner, who had removed the page. This is not the stage to go into that question. This issue is to be decided during trial. Therefore, keeping in view the allegation, I do not find any illegality with the order under which prayer for discharge has been rejected as it is only during trial on production of the evidences, it can be found whether there has been culpability on the part of the petitioner or not? 12. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.