1. 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 for quashing the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I. at Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.04 (A)/2010–AHD-R-(C) registered under section 120B/193/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of the said case. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Complaint Case No.02 of 2008 was filed in the court of the Vigilance-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi alleging therein that two ministers of the Government of Jharkhand namely Mr. Hari Narain Rai and Mr. Enos Ekka have acquired huge property by abusing their official position. The said complaint was forwarded to the Vigilance Police Station under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for institution and investigation of the case. Basing upon the same, Vigilance P.S. case No.26 of 2008 was registered. During the pendency of the investigation of the said case by the Vigilance, order dated 04.08.2010 was passed by a Bench of this court in W.P. (PIL) No.4700 of 2008 and 2252 of 2009 directing the C.B.I to take over the investigation of the case. Thereafter, C.B.I. took over the investigation of the case and found that Enos Ekka has acquired property in the name of his wife Mrs. Menon Ekka who is the co-accused of this petitioner. Mrs. Menon Ekka filed several applications before Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR) seeking permission in terms of Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (C.N.T. Act) to purchase the land and one of such land purchased was situated at Khata No.148, residential plot No.1802, area 22 Khatha, of village-Hinoo P.S. Doranda, Ranchi. The seller of the said land also submitted an application seeking permission to sell the said land. Both the applications of the proposed seller and purchaser were accompanied by affidavits of the seller as well as purchasers respectively stating therein that both of them are residents within the Doranda Police Station area. It is alleged that the purchaser Mrs. The seller of the said land also submitted an application seeking permission to sell the said land. Both the applications of the proposed seller and purchaser were accompanied by affidavits of the seller as well as purchasers respectively stating therein that both of them are residents within the Doranda Police Station area. It is alleged that the purchaser Mrs. Menon Ekka, though a member of Schedule Tribe, was not the resident of the area within the jurisdiction of Police Station of Doranda in which Khata No.148, residential plot No.1802, area 22 Khatha of village-Hinoo P.S. Doranda, Ranchi was situated, the details of which, has been mentioned in the page-26 of the charge sheet. It is further alleged that Mrs. Menon Ekka dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the sellers and the petitioner herein into believing that she was the resident of the same Police Station as the sellers and in order to achieve her fraudulent goals, she mentioned false residential addresses and even submitted false affidavits also. It is the further case of the prosecution that in keeping with the statutory provisions of CNT Act, a check list has been formulated in which, the DCLR obtains report from the concerned Circle Officer to see whether the requirement of Section 46 and 48 of C.N.T. Act, has been fulfilled. Such conditions are as follows: (i) Prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner is made. (ii) Purchaser is also a member of Schedule Tribes. (iii) Purchaser is a resident within the local limits of the area of the Police Station within which the holding is situated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court towards the copy of the check-list which is filled up by Halka Karmchari and placed by the Circle Inspector upon being satisfied about the facts mentioned therein before the Circle Officer and ultimately the Circle Officer recommended the same to the L.R.D.C., for according the permission submits that there is no material in the said checklist to suggest that there was any ground for not according such permission by the petitioner in the capacity of L.R.D.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner next draws the attention of this Court towards page-12 of Interlocutory Application No.8230 of 2019 which is the order passed by the petitioner in capacity of L.R.D.C. (Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi) and it is submitted by Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner next draws the attention of this Court towards page-12 of Interlocutory Application No.8230 of 2019 which is the order passed by the petitioner in capacity of L.R.D.C. (Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi) and it is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Piprawall learned counsel for the petitioner that at page-12-14, by a reasoned order basing upon the check-list submitted by the Halka Karmchari which was produced by the Circle Inspector before the Circle Officer and which was also recommended by the Circle Officer, the petitioner passed a quasi-judicial order after taking the statement of the applicants who were identified by the concerned advocates, the petitioner accorded the said permission by the order No.3 dated 20.03.2006 passed in Permission Case No.1996 R 811/05-06. 5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the L.R.D.C. simply passed the quasi-judicial order on being satisfied upon the report submitted by the Karamchari which was produced by the Circle Inspector before the Circle Officer and forwarded by the Circle Officer recommending according such permission and the order was ultimately passed by the petitioner in exercise of the power vested upon him under Section 46 (1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence punishable either under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below committed illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner. It is also submitted that to constitute the offence two components are essential being the actus reus and mens rea and since the petitioner has passed a quasi-judicial order basing upon the material placed before him inter alia consisting the recommendation by the concerned authority in favour of according for permission, the petitioner cannot be said to have actus reus or mens rea as the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the fact that the purchaser Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of Doranda Police Station and there is no material in the record to suggest that petitioner was having such knowledge. It is further submitted that on the other hand since Mr. Enos Ekka-who was admittedly a Cabinet Minister of the Government of Jharkhand at the relevant time and who is the husband of Mrs. Menon Ekka, was residing within the Doranda Police Station area at the relevant time and Mrs. It is further submitted that on the other hand since Mr. Enos Ekka-who was admittedly a Cabinet Minister of the Government of Jharkhand at the relevant time and who is the husband of Mrs. Menon Ekka, was residing within the Doranda Police Station area at the relevant time and Mrs. Menon Ekka being his wife was residing in his official accommodation, so it can very well be said that at the relevant time Mrs. Menon Ekka was the resident of Doranda Police Station area as it is not disputed that Mrs. Menon Ekka at the relevant time was residing in the official accommodation of her husband within the Doranda Police Station area. It is next submitted that the order of taking cognizance in this case against the co-accused Circle Officers namely Ram Kumar Mandal and Asif Ekram, the allegation against whom was of making wrong recommendations and thus stands in worse footing than the petitioner, was quashed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2014 in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2741 of 2012 the operative portion of which reads as under:- “Under the circumstances, no offence whatsoever is made out under which cognizance has been taken. Accordingly, the order taking the cognizance is hereby quashed.” 6. It is next submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was agitated before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the State of Jharkhand in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9452 of 2016 and vide order dated 01.09.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not find any merit in the said Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.9452 of 2016 and the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9407 of 2015 (IIA) which were filed in respect of the order dated 05.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2741 of 2012 in respect of quashing of cognizance taken against the co-accused Ram Kumar Mandal, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed both the said Special Leave Petitions but observed that however departmental action against both the said co-accused Circle Officers be initiated in the light of the observations recorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Petition No.2741 of 2012 in respect of quashing of cognizance taken against the co-accused Ram Kumar Mandal, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed both the said Special Leave Petitions but observed that however departmental action against both the said co-accused Circle Officers be initiated in the light of the observations recorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the order passed by the petitioner under Section 46 (1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is an appealable order and the provision of appeal thereto has been envisaged under Section 2 (1) (5) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act to the Deputy Commissioner but in this case no appeal has been preferred by anybody. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. at Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.04 (A)/2010–AHD-R-(C) be quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. 7. Mrs. Nitu Sinha- learned counsel for the C.B.I. defended the impugned order and submits that the co-accused persons namely Ram Kumar Mandal and Asif Ekram were the Circle Officers who had no power to accord the permission but the petitioner by the order No.3 dated 20.03.2006 passed in Permission Case No.1996 R 811/05-06, himself has accorded permission even though Mrs. Menon Ekka does not have any land within the local limits of jurisdiction of Doranda Police Station and the petitioner has passed the said order as if he is a post office, hence, he has acted without application of judicial mind. In support of the settled principle of law that direct evidence cannot be given regarding the meeting of mind to constitute the offence for criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, Mrs. Nitu Sinha- learned counsel for the C.B.I. relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2017) 8 SCC 791 paragraph 45 of which reads as under:- “45. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy. Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In some cases, indulgence in the illegal act or legal act by illegal means may be inferred from the knowledge itself.” 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that there is sufficient material in the record to proceed against the petitioner and from his conduct his involvement in criminal conspiracy is apparent and as it is a settled principle of law that direct evidence cannot be given regarding the meeting of mind to constitute the offence for criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, but it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the C.B.I that for being a resident of a place, it is not necessary that a person must own a land within that police station area. It is then submitted by Mrs. Sinha that, this petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that it is not disputed that the co-accused petitioner namely Mrs. Menon Ekka was residing in the official residence of her husband- Enos Ekka within the local limits of jurisdiction of Doranda Police Station at the relevant time and the check-list which was prepared by the co-accused Halka Karmchari endorsed by the co-accused Circle Inspector and recommended by the co-accused Circle Officer does not indicate that Mrs. Menon Ekka is not having any land within the jurisdiction of Doranda Police Station or that she was not a resident of that Police Station or that there was any other ground not to accord permission for the said purchase of land by Mrs. Menon Ekka is not having any land within the jurisdiction of Doranda Police Station or that she was not a resident of that Police Station or that there was any other ground not to accord permission for the said purchase of land by Mrs. Menon Ekka from the seller of the land. It is further submitted that the affidavit which was annexed with the check list in which the co-accused Mrs. Menon Ekka has categorically stated that she is a resident within the area of Doranda Police Station. 10. Under such circumstances in the absence of any material to show that the co-accused purchaser Mrs. Menon Ekka was not the resident of the area of Doranda Police Station, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence punishable in law. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the allegation against the petitioner, are at the worst on similar footing as the allegations made against the co-accused Circle Officers Ram Kumar Mandal and Asif Ekram and as the same order taking cognizance as against the petitioner has already been quashed and the Special Leave Petitions have already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, so far it relates to the co-accused Circle Officers, Ram Kumar Mandal and Asif Ekram, hence the portion of the impugned order dated 11.12.2012 passed by learned Special Judge C.B.I. at Ranchi in connection with R.C. Case No.04 (A)/2010 –AHD-R-(C) by which the cognizance has been taken against this petitioner namely Rati Kant Jha is not sustainable in law, hence, the same is quashed and set aside. In view of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.9452 of 2016 dated 01.09.2017, departmental action may be initiated against the petitioner. 11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.