JUDGMENT : [Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.] 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the jurisdiction of this Court 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 inter alia against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. 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 along with private personnel 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 ensured that the petitioner who secured less marks than the cut-off marks, was fraudulently and dishonestly declared successful in the result published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and was appointed as Lecturer in History on the basis of eligibility attained by their fraudulent J.E.T. (Jharkhand Eligibility Test) results and the co-accused persons including the brother of the then Member of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, sister of one of the members of the then member of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. It is further alleged that the co-accused public servants in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, using their official position dishonestly and fraudulently manipulated the merit list, assessment charts to extend undue benefit to their preferred candidates including the petitioner and under the guidance of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the petitioner was declared qualified even though he secured marks less than the candidates who even after securing more marks, could not qualify for the post of Lecturers and the recruitment test was conducted in complete violation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Rules of Procedure), 2002. It is further alleged that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner was declared selected on the basis of 43 marks for his career and 28.5 marks for interview i.e. in total for 71.5 marks but the Central Forensic Science Laboratory deciphered that the petitioner was given 20 marks by two Experts which has been manipulated to 28 in the Assessment Chart and the Chairman of the Interview Board was Radha Gobind Nagesh who awarded him 17 marks which was fraudulently entered as 37 in the merit list and as such the petitioner deserved only 62.50 marks whereas the minimum marks required was 70.5 and still in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servants by committing cheating and forgery managed to him appointed as lecturer. 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 punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner also in the individual page in the format of page-44 of the internal page of the charge-sheet in serial No. (xvi) it has been mentioned that the petitioner has committed offences punishable “Under Acts & Sections- u/s 120B, 420, 468 & 471 of IPC” only and there is no reference of either under Section 201 of the IPC or the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though in internal page-92 of the charge-sheet, it has categorically been mentioned that the facts and circumstances, prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 201/420/468/471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 in respect of all the accused persons including the petitioner. The learned trial court on perusal of the relevant documents found that the offence punishable under Sections 120 B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with 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. Mrs. 5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been inserted by the investigating agency in the charge-sheet without any evidence against him. It is next submitted that the allegation inter alia against the petitioner is highly absurd, obnoxious and concocted and only for the purpose of his false implication in this case in the absence of any evidence of any overt act on the part of the petitioner, still the petitioner has been projected by the prosecuting agencies during the investigation of the case as an accused person in this case. It is next submitted that the prosecuting agency has misunderstood and misinterpreted the facts and circumstances of the case entirely. It is next submitted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the manipulations of marks if any done by the co-accused persons as the petitioner had no access to such documents. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R as well as impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2013-R, be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Prasahant Pallav-learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand submits that this being a case of criminal conspiracy, direct evidence of involvement of the petitioner in any overt criminal act is not a sine qua non and the fact that the selection of the petitioner was made only after manipulation of the marks by committing forgery and as only on the basis of the same the petitioner has been selected as a Lecturer of History speaks volumes about his complicity in the criminal conspiracy. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no illegality was done in the selection process of the petitioner. 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that no illegality was done in the selection process of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance categorically reflects the application of the judicial mind on the part of the learned trial court and there is no illegality in the impugned order and merely because the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code or for that matter the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not mentioned in one of the formats of the description in the accused persons in the opening part of the chargesheet because of oversight or printing error though the same has categorically been mentioned in paragraph number 92 of the charge-sheet; certainly cannot debar the trial court when there are materials in the record to suggest that the petitioner was involved in criminal conspiracy in respect of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the offences punishable under the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 besides the other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code more so when in the concluding page of the charge-sheet itself, it has categorically been mentioned and urged upon the Court by the C.B.I. to take cognizance for the all the said offences including the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner as well. It is further submitted that the prayer for quashing of the order taking cognizance made by the co-accused Dr. Satish Kumar Singh, the allegations against whom are similar to the instant petitioner, has already been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1058 of 2020 and the same prayer of the co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2161 of 2020. It is then submitted that there is neither any illegality in the impugned order nor is there any justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. It is then submitted that there is neither any illegality in the impugned order nor is there any justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servant member and controller of examinations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, manipulated the marks was declared selected on the basis of 43 marks for his career and 28.5 marks for interview i.e. in total for 71.5 marks but the Central Forensic Science Laboratory deciphered that the petitioner was given 20 marks by two Experts which has been manipulated to 28 in the Assessment Chart and the Chairman of the Interview Board was Radha Gobind Nagesh who awarded him 17 marks which was fraudulently entered as 37 in the merit list and as such the petitioner deserved only 62.50 marks whereas the minimum marks required was 70.5 10. 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 prosecution because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. It is pertinent to mention that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, 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. 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) 11. 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 defence as has been held by the 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. 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] .]” 12. 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 as has been held by the 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.” 13. 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.” 13. Considering the overwhelming materials in the record, to the effect that petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servants was declared selected on the basis of 43 marks for his career and 28.5 marks for interview i.e. in total for 71.5 marks but the Central Forensic Science Laboratory deciphered that the petitioner was given 20 marks by two Experts which has been manipulated to 28 in the Assessment Chart and the Chairman of the Interview Board was Radha Gobind Nagesh who awarded him 17 marks which was fraudulently entered as 37 in the merit list and as such the petitioner deserved only 62.50 marks whereas the minimum marks required was 70.5; 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 120B, 201, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with 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. Accordingly, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner either. 14. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 15. This Cr.M.P. is disposed of accordingly.