JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in P.C.R.Case No.371 of 2013, dated 9.7.2018, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj including the order of cognizance dated 26.9.2013 whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj under section 120(B) of the IPC against the petitioner and order dated 15.1.2015 passed in Cr. Revision No.33 of 2014 passed by learned Principal Session Judge, Sahibganj is also under challenge. 2. The case was lodged by the O.P.no.2 alleging therein that the complainant Ranjit Singh was posted as clerk cum Oncharge Jailor in Sahibganj Divisional Jail. On 14.12.2010 after his transfer to Godda Jail, he handed over the charge to Sri Suresh Prasad Rajak and took charge at Godda Jail on 15.12.2010. The complaint has stated that on 9.3.2011 Superintendent Godda Jail filed an First Information Report against him making allegation against him that he had gone on leave having locked all the registers of the Office in the residential quarter. The complainant has stated that the police investigated the matter and submitted final report showing mistake of fact. The complainant has stated that on 26.6.2011 Abhishek Srivastava, Incharge Jail Superintendent, Godda Jail directed to break the lock of his residence to find out the register. All the registers found in the residence were mentioned in an inventory. In which it was shown that one register of Sahibganj along with bank statement was recovered from the residence. The complainant has stated that he had handed over charge of the bank statement to Suresh Prasad at Sahibganj Jail. Later on Rafique Alam told him that in May 2011 Jailor of Sahibganj Jail had given him a register that was to be handed over to Sri Arjun Prasad, Jailor of Godda Jail. Rafique Alam went to Godda by a motor cycle of Ashok Kumar Yadav and handed over that register to Arjun Prasad. The complainant has stated that then he instituted an First Information Report at Jirwarwari O.P.Police, in which the police submitted final form. 3. Mr. Rafique Alam went to Godda by a motor cycle of Ashok Kumar Yadav and handed over that register to Arjun Prasad. The complainant has stated that then he instituted an First Information Report at Jirwarwari O.P.Police, in which the police submitted final form. 3. Mr. Rohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far conspiracy is concerned, that is not made out against the petitioner and he refers to section 120(A) of the I.P.C and submits that criminal conspiracy is defined there and no case is made out against the petitioner in light of the definition of criminal conspiracy under section 120(A) of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of “Vijayan & Rajan etc. v. State of Kerala” reported in AIR 1999 SC 1086 . Paragraph no.11 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “11. So far as the circumstances for bringing home the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B against accused Sadanandan is concerned, less said the better. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from established facts inference could be drawn but there must be some material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy. In the case in hand we do not find any materials produced even for inferring a conspiracy between the two accused persons to do away with the deceased Majeendran.” 4. Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the enquiry witnesses have supported the case of the O.P.No.2 and in that course it has been transpired that the petitioner was also involved. 5. Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the enquiry witnesses have supported the case of the O.P.No.2 and in that course it has been transpired that the petitioner was also involved. 5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has perused the cognizance order dated 26.9.2013, and finds that the learned court has passed the reasoned order of taking cognizance against the petitioner under section 120(B) of the I.P.C. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Cr.Revision No.33 of 2014 and in the criminal revision the learned court has considered the S.A of the complainant and two enquiry witnesses namely, Md. Rafique Alam who was working at Jail as Electrical Mechanic and at that time Mr.Sudhir Prasad was working as Jailor. The said Sudhir Prasad has handed over the register to Mr. Shankar Rajak and told him to hand over the same to Jailor of Godda Jail who is the petitioner in this case. At the instance of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav has handed over the register to Mr. Shankar Rajak, enquiry witness no.2 Ashok Kumar Yadav has supported the statement of Electrical Mechanic Rafique Alam. Considering all these facts the learned revisional court has dismissed the petition of the petitioner. The elements of criminal conspiracy have been stated to be (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it is necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. A reference may be made to the case of “State, through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini and Others”, (1999) 5 SCC 253 . A reference may be made to the case of “State, through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini and Others”, (1999) 5 SCC 253 . So far as agreement is concerned that is the subject matter of trial whether the petitioner was in agreement with the other co-accused persons or not. 6. The judgment relied by Mr. Rohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of “Vijayan & Rajan etc. v. State of Kerala”(supra) is arising out of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case relied by Mr. Rohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also discussed in paragraph no.11 of the said judgment there must be some material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy. In the case in hand, the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant and it is prima facie involvement of the petitioner is there in view of the statement of the enquiry witness no.1 and 2, thus this judgment is not helping the petitioner. 7. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasons and analysis as discussed above, Cr.M.P. No. 725 of 2015 is dismissed. 8. Interim order is vacated.