JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned Spl. PP appearing on behalf of the opposite party. “This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.09.12 and 18.10.12 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 52(A)/10(the case is pending therein) arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 101/10 whereby the cognizance for the offence under Sections 406,409,420,467,468,471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7/13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner now pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially cognizance of offence was taken against the co-accused as the sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was not available. Subsequently when the sanction was received, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner also vide impugned order dated 18.10.2012. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of this case, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 26.03.2014 and accordingly I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 has been filed challenging the order refusing to discharge the petitioner. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits the present status of the case is that the trial is going on. 4. While advancing argument in connection with challenge to the order refusing to discharge the petitioner , which is sought to be challenged vide amendment petition being I.A. No. 2090 of 2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment passed by this court in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2013 in connection with the present petitioner itself wherein under similar allegation, the order refusing to discharge the petitioner was set aside by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. Learned counsel further submits that in this view of the matter, ex-facie, no criminal case is made out against the petitioner and therefore it is fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner as continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law. 5. P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner as continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law. 5. The learned counsel also refers to para 14 of the main petition and submits that the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was posted as District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Khunti during the period 1st July 2008 to 25th March, 2010 and handed over his charge to Sri Rajendra Kumar Jain on 25th March, 2010. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that there are serious allegations of misappropriation, embezzlement and defalcation of money against the petitioner in conspiracy with the other co-accused and the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case during investigation. He submits that it has been alleged that during the financial year 2008-09 under backward area an amount of about 2.39 crores for construction of 12 panchayat bhawan and an amount of Rs. 71.34 lacs for construction of 15 Anganbari Centres was allotted to Zila Parishad and a total of Rs. 3.05 crores was given as advance and after inspection by the enquiry team the construction was found incomplete although it was shown to be complete. It is also alleged that fake bills and documents were prepared to embezzle an amount of Rs. 1.27 crores and odd. It is alleged that the petitioner being the district engineer, without verifying the execution and completion of the work released and handed over the amount to the Junior engineer and Labhuk Samiti for implementation of the scheme. He submits that more than prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner which does not call for any interference under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. He further submits that the case of the present petitioner cannot be decided by referring another criminal case even if the present petitioner was an accused in the other case also. He further submits that every criminal case is independent of each other and the present case can be examined only in the light of the materials in the present case. He submits that order passed in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2012 has no bearing in this case even if it was passed in the case filed by the present petitioner. He submits that order passed in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2012 has no bearing in this case even if it was passed in the case filed by the present petitioner. He submits that accordingly, it cannot be said, that ex-facie, no criminal case is made out against the petitioner calling for any interference under Section 482 Cr. P.C. He submits that I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 is not maintainable as order refusing to discharge is revisable under Section 397 Cr. P.C. He further submits that the petitioner was at the helm of the affair and after considering the materials, the prosecution sanction has already been granted and thereafter cognizance has been taken, discharge petition has been rejected by appreciating the materials collected during investigation and charge has also framed and the trial is in progress. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that initially this petition was filed challenging the order taking cognizance .During the pendency of this case, the petitioner had filed a petition for discharge before the learned court below which has been rejected vide order dated 26.03.2014 which has been challenged by filing amendment petition being I.A. No. 2090 of 2014. So far as I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 is concerned, there is no dispute that order refusing to discharge is a revisable order under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., but the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the amendment petition should be allowed in view of his specific case that ex-facie no criminal case is made out against the petitioner considering the order passed by this court in Cr. Rev. no. 853 of 2012 filed by the petitioner in connection with another criminal case, and accordingly the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of law and fit to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly argued that ex-facie no case is made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations are taken as true. 9. Considering the aforesaid submission and also considering the fact that I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 was filed in the year 2014 and has remained pending for years together , I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 is hereby allowed and is directed to be treated as a part of the main petition . 9. Considering the aforesaid submission and also considering the fact that I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 was filed in the year 2014 and has remained pending for years together , I.A. No. 2090 of 2014 is hereby allowed and is directed to be treated as a part of the main petition . However , the scope of examination of this case would be confined as to whether ex-facie any criminal case made out against the petitioner or not and whether power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised or not. It is well settled that power under section 482 Cr.P.C is to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases where there is abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice or the proceedings suffer from any jurisdictional errors. 10. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioner is the order passed by this court in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2012 whereby another criminal case against the petitioner has been quashed vide order dated 28.11.2013. This court is of the considered view that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner is devoid of any merits as every case has its own peculiar facts and investigation and the order passed in one case cannot form a basis to quash another case. This court further finds that so far as in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2012 is concerned, this court while quashing the order refusing to discharge specifically recorded that no criminal case was made out against the petitioner in the said case. In the present case the allegation appears to be different (when compared with the facts mentioned in order passed in Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2012) and the allegations against the petitioner in the present case have been recorded in the submission of the opposite party as well as the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner. In the present case this court finds that there is an allegation against the petitioner being a District Engineer without verifying the execution and completion of work of the Panchayat Bhawan and Anganbari Centre handed over the amount to the co-accused. 11. In the present case this court finds that there is an allegation against the petitioner being a District Engineer without verifying the execution and completion of work of the Panchayat Bhawan and Anganbari Centre handed over the amount to the co-accused. 11. In view of the allegation which has been made against the petitioner in the present case it cannot be said that ex-facie no criminal case is made out against the petitioner and that the continuation of the same would amount to an abuse of the process of law calling for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. This court is of the considered view that more than prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner and the learned court below has refused to discharge the petitioner by a well reasoned order. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned orders, i.e. the order taking cognizance against the petitioner , which has been impugned in the main petition, as well as the order refusing to discharge the petitioner, do not call for any interference by this court . Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 13. However, dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of either parties before the learned court below. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.