JUDGMENT 1. Heard Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Vigilance. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - ''That in the instant application, the Petitioners pray for invocation of the inherent powers of this Honble Court for quashing the order dated 6.6.2013 of Shri Abhi Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with Special Case No. 11 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1707 of 2013 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1707 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance has been pleased to find a prima case against the present Petitioners under Sections 171E/171F/171H/414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 133 of the Representation of the People Act, Sections 568/574/559 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and Section 8, 9, 10 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly took cognizance of the same; and for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Special Case No. 11 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2011 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1707 of 2013, now pending in the Court of Shri Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi.'' I.A. No. (Cr.) 1625 of 2015 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1625 of 2015 has been filed for making additional prayer in the main petition and she does not want to present this interlocutory application. 5. Accordingly, I.A. (Cr.) No. 1625 of 2015 stands dismissed as not pressed. Cr. M. P. No. 1793 of 2013 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and ex-facie no case is made out against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-Vigilance opposed the prayer and submits that there are direct allegation against the petitioners. She also submits that the charge has already been framed by the learned court below and trial is going on. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order taking cognizance. She submits that the petitioners may raise all the points as per law before the learned court below at the stage of trial. 8. She also submits that the charge has already been framed by the learned court below and trial is going on. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order taking cognizance. She submits that the petitioners may raise all the points as per law before the learned court below at the stage of trial. 8. Considering the submissions made on behalf the opposite party-Vigilance, this Court is not inclined to exercise power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire criminal proceeding, in as much as, this Court is not satisfied with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that ex-facie no case is made out against the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed. 12. It is observed that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever before the learned court below. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.