JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Vide order dated 14.08.2019, the learned Registrar General was directed to hold an enquiry and to submit a report fixing responsibility for delay in listing the case. The matter was listed on 14.02.2018 before the Joint Registrar and only one week time was granted to remove the defect, failing which it was directed to be listed before the learned Registrar General, but the case has been listed before the learned Registrar General after a long delay i.e. after 11 months on 16.01.2019 and thereafter the matter was listed before this Court on 14.08.2019. 2. Upon perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the learned Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, it appears that Sri. Ajay Shankar, Section Officer-cum-D.A. I/c has submitted in his explanation that vide order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the Lawazima Board of learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) in the instant case record of Cr. M.P. 3030/2017, defect no. 9(ii) & (v) was ignored and for removal of defect no. 8 one week time was granted, failing which the case may be placed before the learned Registrar General. The file was received on 15.02.2018 and upon checking of the case record, the defect no. 8 was still standing. The defect no. 8 was not removed by the learned counsel within one week i.e. by 21.02.2018 and therefore this case record remained a defective one. According to Sri Ajay Shankar, Section Officer-cum-D.A. I/c, from May,2018 he was posted verbally to assist the Court Master in Court No. 8 in addition to his own assigned work. He has further submitted that due to paucity of time and to the best of his sincere efforts, he attended all the work which were urgent in nature and where quick actions were required to be taken. Since the instant case was still defective, therefore it was placed before the Lawazima Board of Learned Registrar General vide office note dated 05.11.2018 where order was passed on 16.01.2019 permitting removed of the defect during course of the day. Thereafter the file was defect-free and accordingly through office note dated 18.01.2019 it was placed for listing under the heading ''Fresh Filing''. The matter was placed before the Hon''ble Court. As per the report submitted by the learned Registrar General, Sri. Thereafter the file was defect-free and accordingly through office note dated 18.01.2019 it was placed for listing under the heading ''Fresh Filing''. The matter was placed before the Hon''ble Court. As per the report submitted by the learned Registrar General, Sri. Ajay Shankar, Section Officer-cum-D.A. I/c has sincerely regretted for the inconvenience caused while listing the case under the heading for fresh filing and that he has admitted his mistake and has undertaken not to commit such mistake in future. 3. After perusal of the report and explanation, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the concerned person and accordingly directs the learned Registrar General to take up the matter on the administrative side and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, so that such mistakes are not repeated in future. Cr. M. P. No. 3030 of 2017 4. Heard Ms. Kumari Rashmi, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Heard Mr. T. N. Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 6. This petition has been filed for the following relief: - "That by this application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon''ble Court to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the first information report, being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 59 of 2016 (corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 62 of 2016), registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presently pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (ACB) at Chaibasa to quash and set aside the order dated 5.1.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Chaibasa in Vigilance Case No. 12/2017, whereby the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and further pleased to discharge the petitioner." 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the present case was filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including First Information Report. However, during the pendency of this case, a discharge petition dated 17.09.2018 was filed by the petitioner which has been rejected vide order dated 05.01.2019 by the learned court below. Accordingly, an application for amendment of prayer portion of the main petition was filed being I.A. No. 2258 of 2019 and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.08.2019 by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, the entire criminal case including order refusing to discharge the petitioner, is under challenge. Accordingly, an application for amendment of prayer portion of the main petition was filed being I.A. No. 2258 of 2019 and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.08.2019 by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, the entire criminal case including order refusing to discharge the petitioner, is under challenge. The counsel while advancing her argument has submitted that the entire allegation is false and fabricated, in as much as, it has been specifically stated in Para-13 of the main petition that on 06.08.2016, i.e. prior to two days of making the complaint by the complainant, the petitioner made the entry of the annual increment of the complainant, which would be evident from the JCT Form-17, relating to pay bill of the whole Block-Manjhari, District- West Singhbhum and this pay bill includes the annual increment of the complainant also. Therefore, if the entries were already made on 06.08.2016, then there was no question of demanding money from the complainant and accordingly the entire criminal proceeding, is fit to be set-aside being an abuse of the process of law. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are merely the defence of the petitioner and otherwise also merely because the entries have been made prior to filing of the complaint, that does not mean that there was no demand of money. He submits that the basic requisites for the purposes of trap including the preparation of pre-trap memorandum and post-trap memorandum, was duly completed and the petitioner was caught red handed with the bribe money, accordingly there are sufficient materials against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected the petition for discharge the petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the basic requirement for the purposes of trap, appears to have been satisfied and the petitioner is alleged to have been caught with bribe money, this Court does not find any illegality in the order refusing to discharge the petitioner. So far as the submissions of the petitioner regarding doing the required work of the complaint prior to filing of the complaint itself is concerned, the same is a matter to be considered at the stage of trial and cannot be considered at this stage. So far as the submissions of the petitioner regarding doing the required work of the complaint prior to filing of the complaint itself is concerned, the same is a matter to be considered at the stage of trial and cannot be considered at this stage. This court finds that sanction for prosecution has also been received. Upon perusal of the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner , this court finds that the aforesaid aspects of the matter has been properly considered by the learned court below and this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, this Cr. M. P. No. 3030 of 2017, is hereby dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 13. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX.