JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the Order dated 30.09.2019 taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 120 (B), 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R passed by learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi inter alia against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the co-accused persons respectively being the member, examination controller-cum-secretary of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission thus public servants along with a private person of M/s. Global Informatics and inter alia the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the public servants in abuse of their respective official positions dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated/allowed to manipulate the merit list, assessment charts of the selection process of lecturers of the three universities of Jharkhand to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and inter alia dishonestly and fraudulently the petitioner was declared qualified even though the petitioner got marks less than the minimum marks required for the said examination and for this purpose marks in the assessment charts of the petitioner was increased to extend undue favour to the petitioner which facilitated the selection of the petitioner as a lecturer of English. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared selected on the basis of 37 marks for his career and 38 marks for interview i.e. total 75 marks but the Central Forensic Science Laboratory deciphered that the petitioner was initially given 31 marks in the interview which was manipulated to 38 in the Assessment Chart and by such manipulation the petitioner was only entitled to get 75 marks which was the minimum marks required and because of the said manipulation done in criminal conspiracy with the coaccused public servants, the petitioner could succeed in getting selected as a lecturer in English. The co-accused member of Jharkhand Public Service Commission who was the Chairman of the Interview Board in respect of the interview of the petitioner for the said purpose, in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, did the manipulation. 4. The co-accused member of Jharkhand Public Service Commission who was the Chairman of the Interview Board in respect of the interview of the petitioner for the said purpose, in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, did the manipulation. 4. After completion of investigation of the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted charge-sheet inter alia finding that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons having committed the offences Cr. M.P. No.2161 of 2020 punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial court on perusal of the relevant documents found that offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out inter alia against the petitioner and vide order dated 30.09.2019 took cognizance for the said offences inter alia against the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari-learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in running page-79 of the brief which is the internal page-18 of the chargesheet, the petitioner has been described in his address portion as- Assistant Professor of History in V.B.U. i.e. Vinoba Bhave University but in fact the allegation against him is that he is an Assistant Professor in the subject of English and not History. It is further submitted that the learned trial court ought to have considered that without ascertaining the entire facts on the basis of so-called information given by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, the charge-sheet have been submitted, it ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence. It is next submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was not on the basis of the marks but because of the circumstances which cropped up after filing of the L.P.A. No.243 of 2009 by one Dr. Kumari Bharti Singh in this Court. It is next submitted that the name of the petitioner was not present in the list of 722 candidates whose names were recommended and who joined as per the notifications made by the university against all the vacancies of general category. It is then submitted that the petitioner has the same marks as that of Dr. It is next submitted that the name of the petitioner was not present in the list of 722 candidates whose names were recommended and who joined as per the notifications made by the university against all the vacancies of general category. It is then submitted that the petitioner has the same marks as that of Dr. Kumari Bharti Singh who secured 72 marks and the name of the petitioner is above Dr. Kumari Bharti Singh as he is older to Dr. Kumari Bharti Singh. 6. Mr. Tewari relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.B.I., Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512 wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case where the accused person of that case was not named in the First Information Report and though statements of several witnesses were enclosed along with the charge-sheet but they only speak volumes about other accused persons of the case and there was no specific reference to the role of the accused person who was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings in respect of the respondent herein went into the allegations in the charge-sheet and the materials placed for scrutiny and arrived at a conclusion that the same do not disclose any criminal offence committed by the accused person of the case was before the court, the Supreme Court of India observed as under in paragraph 26: “26. Xxxxxxx Though as pointed out earlier, a roving enquiry is not needed, however, it is the duty of the Court to find out whether there is any prima facie material available against the person who has been charged with an offence under Section 420 read with Section 109 IPC.” and submits that there is no specific reference to the role of the present petitioner along with the main conspirators like in the case of C.B.I., Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra). 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Tewari further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parveen @ Sonu vs. The State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.1571 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5438 of 2020) dated 07.12.2021 wherein in the facts of that case where the conviction was based on the confessional statement of the co-accused person in the absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that it is not safe to convict the accused. 8. It is lastly submitted Mr Tiwari that the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum- Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi as well as impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R passed by learned A.J.C.- XVI-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand submits that the specific allegation against the petitioner made in the charge-sheet is that in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons; the petitioner by manipulation of the marks obtained by him in interview in the assessment sheet, got his number enhanced and only because of enhancement of such marks he was fraudulently appointed as Assistant Professor of English. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that since in running page-143 of the brief which is the internal page-82 of the charge-sheet, it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner was selected in English mere printing error in his description in internal page-18 of the charge-sheet as Assistant Professor of History; is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance, the defence of the accused person is not to be taken into consideration. It is then submitted that the list of 722 candidates has not been brought on record by the petitioner nor the list of 48 candidates claimed to have been selected by him in the English subject has been brought on record. It is then submitted that the list of 722 candidates has not been brought on record by the petitioner nor the list of 48 candidates claimed to have been selected by him in the English subject has been brought on record. It is then submitted that in absence of the same, the contents of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition cannot be treated as a gospel truth to quash the entire criminal proceeding, at the nascent stage of taking cognizance of the offence when the recitals of the charge-sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation based on evidence collected in a professional manner, the details of which is also not been brought by the petitioner before this Court, is not permissible in law. 10. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-39 of which reads as under:- "39. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The court must apply its mind to the allegations in the chargesheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, “possible defences” need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. CBI [Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 11 SCC 465 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 689].]” And submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35 paragraph- 12 of which read as under:- “12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” and submits that it is a settled principle of law that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court is not expected to enter into the merits of the allegation as if exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/ or conducting the trial. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servant member and controller of examinations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, manipulated the marks which he secured in the interview and enhanced his marks from 31 to 38. 13. It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. At the stage of taking cognizance, the court concerned is not required to consider the defence version or the materials or arguments in that respect nor is it required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the court must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate for the Special Judge, as the case may be, as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate for the Special Judge, as the case may be, as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Taking cognizance of an offence is not the same thing as issuance of process, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka & Another v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728 paragraphs- 10 and 13 of which read as under: “10. Several provisions in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure use the word “cognizance”. The very first section in the said Chapter viz. Section 190 lays down how cognizance of offences will be taken by a Magistrate. However, the word “cognizance” has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dictionary meaning of the word “cognizance” is — “judicial hearing of a matter”. The meaning of the word has been explained by judicial pronouncements and it has acquired a definite connotation. The earliest decision of this Court on the point is R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., ( AIR 1951 SC 207 ) wherein it was held: (SCR p. 320) “… ‘taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.” 13. It is necessary to mention here that taking cognizance of an offence is not the same thing as issuance of process. Cognizance is taken at the initial stage when the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a police report or upon information received from any other person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. The issuance of process is at a subsequent stage when after considering the material placed before it the court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima facie case is made out.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Considering the overwhelming materials in the record and that there is no document in the record except the bald statement of the petitioner that his name, was not appearing in the list of 722 candidates, this Court is of the considered view that there are ample materials in the record for the learned trial court to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120 (B), 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that the uncontroverted allegations, as made, establish a prima facie case against the petitioner of having committed the said offences. The state is no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order or to quash the entire criminal proceeding as there is no perversity or illegality. 15. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 16. This Cr.M.P. is disposed of accordingly.