ORDER :

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 17.11.2011 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002 arising out of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.53 of 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, was involved in making excess payment of money to the contractors much more than the estimated amount even though the work, for which the payment was made, was not completed. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Junior Engineer. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., specific allegation has been made against the Executive Engineer. It is further submitted that all the repairing works were done by the contractors selected and appointed by the Executive Engineer and the petitioner got the work executed satisfactorily as per the estimate and there is no complaint whatsoever against him and the due certificates of satisfactorily completion of work has been issued by the occupants of the quarters and buildings which were cross-verified by the then Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer and only thereafter payment has been made. It is next submitted that the lodging of the F.I.R. is a false table work and vindictive approach on the part of the informant because the informant claims to have verified 22 sites within just nine hours and proper verification of the work by the petitioner during such short time is impossible. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been put under suspension in October, 2011 but no proceeding was initiated against him till filing of this petition. It is also submitted that the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated that work alleged to have been executed, was temporary repairing works for which satisfactory work done certificates and occupancy certificates issued by the occupants have been issued.

4. It is further submitted that in the matter of the co-accused the Assistant Engineer-Naresh Singh, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.M.P. No.2372 of 2012 quashed the entire criminal proceeding of this case including the order dated 05.07.2012 taking cognizance under Sections 409, 511, 467, 468 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/8, 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so far as the co-accused Naresh Singh is concerned. Hence, it is submitted that as the case of the petitioner stands on better footing than Naresh Singh, so the petitioner is also entitled to get the same relief as Naresh Singh. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 17.11.2011 passed in connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002 arising out of Vigilance (Chatra) P.S. Case No.53 of 2002 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi be quashed.

5. Mr. Suraj Verma- the learned Special P.P. appearing for the Vigilance Bureau opposed the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance and defended the order taking cognizance and submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the F.I.R is not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case and cognizance of the offence taken by Magistrate is only after submission of the charge-sheet and during investigation of the case, it has been found that the petitioner was responsible for recommending passing of the bills of the contractors in respect of the works which have not been actually done and in some works also in