ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of R.C. Case No. RC 04(A) of 2010 AHD (R) as also the order dated 11/12/2012, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioner. 3. A complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 02/2008, was lodged by the complainant before the Court of Vigilance alleging therein that two Ministers Mr. Hari Narayan Rai and Mr. Anosh Ekka have acquired huge properties by abusing their official position. The said complaint when was sent before the vigilance police station for its institution and registration, it was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008. While the matter was being investigated by the Vigilance, an order was passed on 04/08/2010 by this Court in WP (PIL) Nos. 4700 of 2008 and 2252 of 2009, whereby the CBI was directed to take over the investigation of the said case. Accordingly, the CBI took over the investigation of the case. During investigation, it was found that Anosh Ekka has also acquired properties in the name of his wife Mrs. Menon Ekka, who had filed an application before the D.C.L.R for seeking permission in terms of Section 46 of the CNT Act to purchase the land situated within Ormajhi and Sadar Police Station. At the same time, the seller had also submitted application for having permission to sell that piece of land. Both the applications accompanied respective affidavits of the seller as well as purchaser stating therein that they do have landed property in the area situated within Ormajhi and Sadar police station. It also accompanied a check slip wherein one of the columns seeking information as to whether purchaser is the resident of the same police station. That was filled up wherein it was stated that purchaser is the resident of the same police station. On receiving the said applications the DCLR asked the Circle Officer,Kanke and Ormajhi to submit report. Both the Circle Officers called for a report from the Karamchari, who submitted its report stating therein that the purchaser is the resident of the area situated within the aforesaid police station. On receiving the said applications the DCLR asked the Circle Officer,Kanke and Ormajhi to submit report. Both the Circle Officers called for a report from the Karamchari, who submitted its report stating therein that the purchaser is the resident of the area situated within the aforesaid police station. The Circle Inspector by making the same endorsement submitted the report to the Circle Officer, Kanke and Ormajhi, who by making endorsement 'forwarded and recommended' submitted its report to DCLR. Accordingly, the petitioner granted permission to the seller for selling land to Menon Ekka though Mrs. Menon Ekka in fact was never the resident of the area falling within the aforesaid police station. 4. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the Karamchari, Circle Inspector, Circle Officer as well as the petitioner, DCLR for commission of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging therein that the petitioner by abusing his official position put the purchaser in advantageous position and, thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On submission of the charge sheet, when cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court, it was challenged before this Court. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the DCLR, had simply acted on the reports submitted by the Karamcharies endorsed by the Circle Inspectors that the purchaser is the resident of the same police station and passed orders in terms of the provision as contained in Sections 46 (1) and 48 of the C.N.T. Act, and, thereby, he did not commit any offence either under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Penal Code and, hence, the Court committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence. 7. Further it was pointed out that the petitioner not only acted upon the aforesaid report but also upon affidavits submitted by the purchaser and the seller and also the statement made by them before the petitioner and that even the stand of the C.B.I is that the purchaser Mrs. 7. Further it was pointed out that the petitioner not only acted upon the aforesaid report but also upon affidavits submitted by the purchaser and the seller and also the statement made by them before the petitioner and that even the stand of the C.B.I is that the purchaser Mrs. Menon Ekka, though a member of the Schedule Tribe is not resident of the area within the jurisdiction of the area in which plots in question were situated, still she claimed to have had land in that area and thereby she dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the seller and the LRDC by making him believe that she was the resident of the same police station where lands in question do situate. Further stand of the C.B.I is that in order to achieve her fraudulent goal, she not only mentioned false residential address but also submitted false affidavit to that effect. In that event, when LRDC has passed an order, he cannot be said to have committed offence either under the Indian Penal Code or under the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. As against this, Mr.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that it is true that this petitioner by acting on the report submitted by his subordinates has passed the order in terms of the provision as contained in Sections 46(1) and 48 of the CNT Act but he had every reason to believe that the purchaser was not the resident of the area where the land situates and hence, the petitioner can certainly be said to have put the purchaser in advantageous position warranting himself to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. Further it was pointed out that the petitioner was fully knowing that Mrs. Menon Ekka was never the resident of that area which would be evident from the statement made by the petitioner during investigation before the C.B.I to the effect that when pressure was exerted by the Minister, Enos Ekka, he acceded to his request and granted permission. 10. He has gone further to point it out that the petitioner has accepted that he had impressed upon the Minister not to pressurise upon him to grant permission for selling the land but the Minister kept on insisting and on being pressurized, he passed an order and this fact amply demonstrates that this petitioner had knowledge that Mrs. 10. He has gone further to point it out that the petitioner has accepted that he had impressed upon the Minister not to pressurise upon him to grant permission for selling the land but the Minister kept on insisting and on being pressurized, he passed an order and this fact amply demonstrates that this petitioner had knowledge that Mrs. Menon Ekka was never the resident of the area where the land which was purchased situates and thereby when the petitioner was having knowledge that purchaser is not the resident of the same area, any permission granted may be subject matter of the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. From the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, it does appear that the petitioner, DCLR is being prosecuted for the reason that he granted permission to the seller for selling the land in favour of Mrs. Menon Ekka after putting reliance on the reports submitted by his subordinate reporting therein that Mrs. Menon Ekka is the resident of the area situated within the police station where the land situates. 12. On the other hand, the stand of the C.B.I is that in spite of the petitioner having knowledge that Mrs. Menon Ekka was never the resident of the area falling within the police station where the land situates, the petitioner passed an order granting permission to the seller for selling it to Mrs. Menon Ekka which is in contravention of the provision as contained in Section 46(1) and 48 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 13. It be recorded that C.B.I during investigation after finding that Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of the area falling within the jurisdiction of the police station where the land situates, formed an opinion that Mrs. Menon Ekka dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the seller and the LRDC believing that she was the resident of the same police station where the seller resides. Further opinion which was formed is that to achieve fraudulent goal, she mentioned false residential address and submitted false affidavit. In that event, submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner by acting upon the report had given permission in terms of the provision as contained in Sections 46(1) and 48 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is acceptable. 14. In that event, submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner by acting upon the report had given permission in terms of the provision as contained in Sections 46(1) and 48 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is acceptable. 14. However, further fact which remains to be taken into account is that the C.B.I in order to establish that the petitioner had had knowledge that Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of same area has been pressing into service, the statement made by the petitioner during investigation before the C.B.I that he passed such order when the pressure had been mounted by the Minister, the husband of Mrs. Menon Ekka. But the question does arise as to whether such statement would be taken into account to as legal evidence to prove the fact that the petitioner was having knowledge of the aforesaid fact. 15. In this regard I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) wherein it has been held that in the following three circumstance, continuance of a criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the court. “1. where it manifestly appears that here is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; 2. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence alleged; 3. where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 16. Here, in the instant case, the C.B.I is heavily placing its reliance on the statement of the petitioner to establish that the petitioner was having knowledge of the fact that Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of the area falling within the police station in which the land which was purchased situates but that statement of the petitioner cannot be taken to be a legal evidence. Except that the prosecution has not come forward with any material showing knowledge of the petitioner that Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of that area. Moreover, if there was any wrong on the part of the petitioner to grant permission to the seller for selling the land in favour of Mrs. Except that the prosecution has not come forward with any material showing knowledge of the petitioner that Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of that area. Moreover, if there was any wrong on the part of the petitioner to grant permission to the seller for selling the land in favour of Mrs. Menon Ekka, he may be proceeded with the departmental proceeding for administrative lapses but not criminally as no evidence is there that the petitioner did it with dishonest intention to have undue pecuniary advantage. If that fact is absent, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted in view of the decision rendered in a case of C.K. Jaffer Sharief vs. State through C.B.I [(2013) 1 SCC 2015)] wherein it has been observed in paragraph 17 that “.... If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. However, it has been said that the dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as public servant.” 17. Similar view has been taken in a case of M. Narayanan Nambiar vsState of Kerala ( AIR 1963 SC 1116 ). 18. Under the circumstances, no offence whatsoever is made out under which cognizance has been taken. 19. Accordingly, the order dated 11.12.2012 taking cognizance is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.