JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi whereby and where under, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so far as it relates to the petitioner only. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the prosecution is that upon a written report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi a preliminary enquiry was made and it was found that without any comparative chart, purchase of medicines and equipment have been made on higher prices leading to revenue loss to the Government. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is confined to serial no.2 of the F.I.R. which relates to Order No.72 dated 26.11.2001 given to M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur, which is the Government of India undertaking company and the petitioner is the authorized stockiest of said M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur for medicines and equipment and the petitioner has received Rs.1,19,900/- for supply of medicines namely Ciprofloxacin which is at a higher price causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.52,750/-. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Pakur has placed the orders for supply of the said medicines with the petitioner and the petitioner has never raised any higher rates nor has caused loss of the revenue to the Government. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in course of enquiry, it has come into light that in the comparative chart of medicines which was prepared in which the price of Ciprofloxacin is Rs.2.16/- per tablet quoted by one company but the same was purchased at the rate of Rs.4.27/- per tablet from the petitioner but the said allegation are false and no comparative chart was ever prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no privity of contract between ACMO, Pakur and the petitioner rather the petitioner supplied the medicines mentioned in the supply order issued by M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur and as such no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner either for misappropriation or for hatching conspiracy. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the firm M/s. MML have said to have quoted the price of Rs.2.16/- per tablet of Ciprofloxacin but no firm in such name exists in India. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Health, Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar has issued a letter contained in Memo No.96 (9)/Swa. Dated 18.02.1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 of the brief, in which a decision was made by the state government that those medicines which have been manufactured by the government company like M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur will be purchased directly from such company. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notification to that effect was issued by the Health Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand as contained in Memo No.280 (5) Swa. dated 31.07.2001 wherein, a decision has been taken to purchase the medicines from the Government of India undertaking, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 of the brief. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar matter in Cr.M.P. No.896 of 2012, a coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No.22 of 2003 including order of taking cognizance and the facts of this case so far as it relates to the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. It is lastly submitted that as no offence has been committed by the petitioner, the order of cognizance dated 16.11.2011 so far as it relates to the petitioner be quashed. 4. Learned Special P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 16.11.2011. Learned Special P.P. and relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors. 4. Learned Special P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 16.11.2011. Learned Special P.P. and relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos.285-287 of 2015 dated 11.02.2015, submits that therein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in criminal complaint cases at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons and at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the learned Magistrate, is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant but it is fairly submitted by the learned Special P.P. that as mentioned in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit, the said purchase order no.72 dated 26.11.2001 was given to M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur and in turn thereof M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur has authorized the petitioner for supply of the medicines and equipment and against that the petitioner has received a total amount of Rs.1,19,900/-. It is then submitted by learned Special P.P. that the prayer for quashing the order of cognizance dated 16.11.2011 ought not to be allowed and this petition being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the Opposite Party-State has filed the counter affidavit without controverting the fact that M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur is a Government of India undertaking and there is no dispute that the orders were placed with M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur and not with the petitioner directly in view of Annexure-5 which has also remained uncontroverted and at the behest of M/s. Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Jaipur, the petitioner supplied the said medicines. It is crystal clear that the medicines referred to in item number 2 of the First Information Report were purchased from the Government of India undertaking company. 6. It is crystal clear that the medicines referred to in item number 2 of the First Information Report were purchased from the Government of India undertaking company. 6. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence whatsoever so, the prosecution of the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so far as it relates to the petitioner- Naresh Kumar Rastogi @ Naresh Kumar Rashtogi is quashed. 8. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.