The court emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defence version or the merits of the materials, and the court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case.

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 punis