ORDER : Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. The challenge in the present appeal is against the order of the High Court dated 11th December, 2015 refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant who was arrayed as accused No.8 in a private complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein. The said complaint was lodged against 27 accused persons alleging offence punishable under Section 114, 119, 120B, 167, 218, 420, 464, 465, 468, 470, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as offence punishable under Section 9, 13(1)(b)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations in the complaint pertained to the use of the land granted by the Government for purposes other than the terms of the grant. Insofar as the present appellant (accused No.8) is concerned, the specific allegations are contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint Petition, which is extracted below : "16. It is further submitted that the accused No.1 & 2 manipulated the Kannada version grant order English Translated copy by inserting "EDUCATION" in the grant conditions to obtain land use certificate for education from accused No.8 and accused No.8 without even looking the original grant and the manipulations by accused No.1 & 2 issued certificate to use the belonging to Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Temple Trust for education and to run school by accused No.1 & 2 vide LND.S.CR.1246/07-08 dated 19.11.2007. Copy of the same is produced and marked as Document No.15. Copy of the Kannada to English translation of land grant conditions in document No.2, 3 & 4 and 6 is produced herewith as Document No.16." 4. From the above it would transpire that the core of the prosecution case against the present appellant is that as the Special Deputy Commissioner he had approved the change of land user enabling the land granted to be used for educational purpose. Further allegation in this regard is that though in the original grant which is in Kannada the word "education purpose" was not mentioned, in the English translation thereof the same was so mentioned. 5. The allegations made in paragraph 16 of the Complaint Petition, extracted above, do not even allege any criminal intent on the part of the appellant (accused No.8). 5. The allegations made in paragraph 16 of the Complaint Petition, extracted above, do not even allege any criminal intent on the part of the appellant (accused No.8). A reading of the said paragraph, at the highest, would indicate that the appellant (accused No.8) could have been negligent inasmuch as his case as projected in the quashing petition is that he had granted approval on a note being put up by the subordinate official. 6. Taking account the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the High Court clearly was in error in passing the impugned order refusing to quash the proceedings against the appellant (accused No.8). We, therefore, interfere; set aside the order of the High Court and quash the criminal proceedings insofar as the appellant (accused No.8) is concerned. 7. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.