The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of evidence to show the commission of an offence, coupled with the similarity of allegations against co-accused whose charges had been quashed, led to the quashing of the portion of the order taking cognizance against the petitioner.

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. 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 fo