JUDGMENT G.H. Guttal, J.- This application by the Accused No.1 in D.C.B., C.I.D., C.R. No. 252/88 of Malad Police Station, since committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, is for quashing the order of committal of the Petitioner made by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. 2. Before setting out the facts on the basis of which the Petitioner has been charged, it should be noted that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings. The cases in which the proceedings may be quashed cannot be exhaustively laid down, but in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab.1, three broad categories have been laid down. The Applicant bases his case on this ground. Even if all the accusations of the prosecution are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute the offence of conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased Bhaskar. In exercising the jurisdiction which I am called upon to exercise, it is not open for me to embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence is reliable or not. I will have to accept as I will presently do-- the statements of every witness which purports to implicate the Applicant at the face value and then judge whether there is against the Applicant evidence of conspiracy to commit murder. 3. I have read the statements of Rupesh Kumar which is the F.I.R dated 15-7-1988, the statement of Kripashankar who was injured in the incident, Smt. Godavari, Sadhana, Vijay Mahadik, Sureshkumar and Bhagwandas Patil. These are all the witnesses whose statements constitute the evidence in the case. The admitted facts are these: In 1987, the Applicant herein, Prabhakar N. Shetty, purchased the property known as Daruwala Compound Malad, in which were situated 1200 structures occupied by different tenants. On 2nd October 1987, he occupied the property, erected his sign-board and build a few cabins for the purpose of supervising the property. He employed watchmen and set out to seek vacant possession by evicting the occupants. Admittedly, he resorted to two modes of persuation : (i) payment of money to the occupant and (ii) offer of alternative accommodation in the building which he intended to erect in the same compound". All Statement of Godavari and other occupants. He employed watchmen and set out to seek vacant possession by evicting the occupants. Admittedly, he resorted to two modes of persuation : (i) payment of money to the occupant and (ii) offer of alternative accommodation in the building which he intended to erect in the same compound". All Statement of Godavari and other occupants. the witnesses have stated that the Applicant persuaded 400 occupants to vacate the premises by paying money to them or offering alternative home to those who did not wish to vacate the compound. Thus, the Applicant was always interested in securing vacant possession of the property by removing structures after the occupants vacated. 4. It is against this background that the Applicant is sought to be connected. with the crime which occurred on 15-7-1988 when the Applicant was not at the scene of the offence. The place was an open land near the office of the Applicant., within the compound The statements made by all the witnesses, when summarised. bring out these facts : The Applicant was interested in driving out the occupants of 800 structures and taking vacant possession. The Applicant had employed watchmen and other staff who used to offer on behalf of the Applicant money for vacating the tenements. The employees of the Applicant tries to frighten the occupants into vacating the tenements. Those of the occupants who did not desire to vacate formed an association to resist the attempt to frighten them into vacating the tenements. At 5.20 p.m. on 15-7-1988, the deceased Bhaskar and some others were walking through the compound. When they came outside the Office of the Applicant, R.K. Shetty, the brother of the Applicant and other accused came out of the office armed with weapons like swords. The Applicant was not amongst them. These accused stabbed Bhaskar and assaulted Rupesh Kumar, the Complainant, and Kripashankar, a witness, with the swords and weapons carries by them Bhaskar died. 5. On the facts set out in the last paragraph, the prosecution urges that the Applicant is a party to the conspiracy to kill Bhaskar, the deceased. Do these facts – which are all the facts against the Applicant -constitute evidence of conspiracy against the Applicant? 6. 5. On the facts set out in the last paragraph, the prosecution urges that the Applicant is a party to the conspiracy to kill Bhaskar, the deceased. Do these facts – which are all the facts against the Applicant -constitute evidence of conspiracy against the Applicant? 6. The cumulative effect of (a) the fact that the assailants came out of the office of the Applicant, (b) that some of them were his employees, and (c) the Applicant had motive for seeking possession of 800 tenements, needs to be interpreted. In order to prove criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. This clearly envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators to commit the crime in State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C. Shukla anr.2 The agreement may be express or implied. In this case there is no direct evidence. The prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence. There are two sets of accused. The Applicant constitutes one set. He was away from the scene. There is no evidence in the possession of the prosecution about any meeting of minds. The second set of the accused are the actual assailants. The question is whether the three circumstances constitute circumstantial evidence of the agreement between the two sets of the accused? The assailants were, no doubt, in the employment of the Applicant. All of them had free access to that office without the presence or permission of the Applicant - especially when R.K. Shetty was with them. The element of agreement or meeting of their minds with the mind of the Applicant does not arise from these facts. R.K. Shetty, as the brother of the Applicant, and the other accused, as the employees, could have taken an independent decision to assault Bhaskar. The Applicant was, no doubt, the beneficiary of eviction of the occupants. But there his connection ends. Between the motive of securing possession of the land and the motive to kill, there is a long distance. The motive of obtaining possession of the open land does not lead to the inference of the motive to kill one of the 800 occupants. 7. But there his connection ends. Between the motive of securing possession of the land and the motive to kill, there is a long distance. The motive of obtaining possession of the open land does not lead to the inference of the motive to kill one of the 800 occupants. 7. It is not easy to seek judicial precedents, on inferences to be drawn from the facts. Nevertheless, the case of Shripad Shivram Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra3 is instructive. Kulkarni and Faras were prosecuted, inter alia, for the offence punishable-under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Prevention of corruption Act. Kulkarni did not receive the amount of birbe. Nor was he present when Faras received the amount. Kulkarni was no doubt in-charge of the office in which Faras worked as his subordinate. Kulkarni directed the Complainant to go to Faras, adding that Faras would tell the Complainant "what he was required to do'. After few days, Kulkarni asked the Complainant as, to "what he had done about the matter" meaning thereby the payment of birbe to Faras. The Complainant told Kulkarni that he was unable to pay Rs. 200/- to which Kulkarni replied that "other matters had been pending for two to three years in the office" and the Complainant's case would be taken up "in its serial order". Kulkarni was present within the hearing of Faras when Faras scaled dawn the demand of birbe from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 125/- Notwithstanding this evidence of participation in the talk by Kulkarni with the Complainant, the Supreme Court set aside Kulkarni's conviction. 8. State (Delhi Administration) v. V.C. Shukla (supra) was a case of alleged conspiracy to destroy the movie film 'Kissa Kursi Kaa'. The evidence of conspiracy consisted of (a) removal of film into the premises of Maruti Udhyog Ltd. which the Accused No. 2 was a Director, (b) their destruction on 15-11-1975 or 18-11-1975 within the premises of Maruti Udhyog Ltd. and (c) reproting the destruction to the accused NO'. 2 Sanjay Gandhi who was not in Delhi, an 17-11-1975. Thus, the absence of the accused alleged to have been a conspirator from the scene of the offence and the destruction of the film within the premises of Maruti Udhyog of which he was the Director, taken at its face value, was held by the Supreme Court inadequate to constitute conspiracy. Thus, the absence of the accused alleged to have been a conspirator from the scene of the offence and the destruction of the film within the premises of Maruti Udhyog of which he was the Director, taken at its face value, was held by the Supreme Court inadequate to constitute conspiracy. While negativing the case of conspiracy between the Accused No. 2 and No.1, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the meeting of minds : The meeting of minds or the element of agreement is of the essence of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Consider whether all the statements taken at their face value disclosed a meeting of the mind of the Applicant with the minds of the assailants. The Applicant was not in his office although the office is his. His brother and other employees had always free access to it. A meeting of minds of the Applicant on one hand and the assailants on the other cannot be inferred. Nor does any witness state the Applicant had attempted taking possession at any previous point of time by terrorising the occupants. Therefore, the absence of such evidence removes the elements of motive to commit the crime. The motive taking possession by persuasion or by payment is one thing. The motive to commit crime like murder is quite another. Having regard to these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there was never any meeting of minds of the Applicant herein and the actual assailants of Bhaskar. Suspicion cannot be allowed to eclipse the requirement of the objective facts. In my opinion, the evidence does not disclose that the Applicant was a participator in the conspiracy to commit murder of Bhaskar. 10. For all these reasons, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The Applicant stands discharged. 1. A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866. 2. A.I.R 1980 S.C. 1382. 3. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 34.