ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with R.C. Case No. 7(S)/2010-AHD-R including the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Ranchi, by which cognizance has been taken for the office punishable under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not assigned any role whatsoever in the criminal conspiracy so alleged. It has further been submitted that petitioner was merely a clerk in the office of M/s Runta Mines Limited, Ghatkuri and had issued some challans to Nikesh Kumar Sinha and Dharmendra Kumar for the purpose of use but the petitioner was never aware that challans so issued would be misused by the said persons. It has further been submitted that even in course of investigation, the complicity of the petitioner was not detected save and except the fact that challans were issued which were also entered into the challan issue register of M/s Runta Mines Limited. It has also been submitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and the surrounding circumstances also do not point to the petitioner being a part of deliberate conspiracy, by which the State exchequer suffered a huge loss. Learned counsel adds that the Management of M/s Runta Mines Limited had made several complaints to the local police station pertaining to the transport challan Form-D and ultimately a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in May, 2010 against three employees of M/s Runta Mines Limited for misappropriation/misutilisation of the transport challans but the said complaint did not include the petitioner as an accused and therefore in absence of there being any incriminating circumstance showing the complicity of the petitioner, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the investigation had revealed about the source of issuance of transport challans D-Form and it cannot be deduced in the present proceeding regarding the non complicity of the petitioner as angle of the conspiracy which has been alleged against the petitioner constituting an offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has to be considered only at the appropriate stage. 5. The main crux of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be the fact that the petitioner was never one of the conspirators which led to misuse of challans so issued. Although, the FIR encompasses within its folds, several accused persons having misused the challans but the role of the petitioner in the chargesheet is of issuance of transport challan Form-D bearing no. 9256201 to 9256300 and 11015444 to 11015500. Investigation also revealed that M/s Rungta Mines Limited did not file return with the District Mining Office, Chaibasa pertaining to the transport challan Form-D but instead had resorted to filing a criminal complaint against three of its employees. 6. The petitioner is basically alleged to be a part of the wider angle of conspiracy. The theory of conspiracy has been very succinctly explained in the case of State Vs. Nalini reported in 1999 (5) SCC 253 , wherein the broad principles were enunciated as under:- “583. Some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles. 1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is a legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be committed. 2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder. 3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. 4. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a chain – A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all will be members of a single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella-spoke enrolment, where a single person at the centre does the enrolling and all the other members are unknown to each other, though they know that there are to be other members. These are theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell which conspiracy in a particular case falls into which category. It may however, even overlap. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. 5. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. 5. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. 6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. 7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy. There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand “this distinction is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders”. 8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. 9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done or written by each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies. 10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime”. 7. It would be premature to determine at this stage regarding the angle of conspiracy and the complicity of the petitioner in such conspiracy or as to whether he was a spoke in the wheel of the conspiracy. Misuse of challans emanated from the petitioner and another employee of M/s Rungta Mines Limited and therefore at this stage, it cannot be ascertained about the exact role of the petitioner in the entire incident. 8. Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABA No. 361 of 2016 and much stress has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner while making prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings. The consideration or principles governing grant of bail and the quashment of the proceedings are distinct and different and they never do overlap. Stalling the prosecution at the threshold of the trial when the angle of conspiracy can only be dissected during the trial to establish the involvement of the petitioner or otherwise is never permissible in the eyes of law. 9. As a cumulative result of the discussions made hereinabove, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.