Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1249 of 2011 ====================================================== 1.Laita Devi wife of Ramji Mandal, Resident of village Rewashi, P.S.Riga, District Sitamarhi. 2.Sahdeo Sah son of Late Narayan Sah, Resident of village Pakari, P.S.Piprahi District Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.State Of Bihar. 2.The District Welfare Office r, Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 14-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance dated 23rd July 2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhiin in Riga P.S.Case No. 27 of 2006, who has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The present case has arisen on the written complaint filed by the District Welfare Officer, Sitamarhi in the matter of appointment of Anganbari Sevika. In the written complaint it has been stated that a fictitious record of proceeding of the Anganbari Sevika was created by the husband of petitioner No.1 who was Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and fraudulently and illegally appointed the petitioner No.1 as Anganbari Sevika claiming that the petitioner No.1 was the only applicant for the Anganbari Sevika of Centre No.3, Brahmsthan. Similarly, similar allegation has been made Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1249 of 2011 (3) 2 / 4 2 against the petitioner No.2 who got appointment of daughter in-law as Anganbari Sevika in Centre No.2, Dhanushi Dakshintola. On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR was lodged and accordingly, cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as it transpired during the enquiry that the appointment of petitioner was illegal, she immediately tendered her resignation and in her place, other lady candidate has been appointed. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the appointment of Petitioner No.1 was found by the Commissioner to be legal and in support of his contention he has relied on annexure-5. On examination of Annexure-5, it appears that the matter was not related to the petitioner, rather it was related to other person and on that basis an impression was given that the appointment of the petitioner was legal which cannot be said to be correct submission. The petitioner has placed before this Court the order dated 5th July 2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41509 of 2010 which is related to Mridula Kumari. From this order it appears that the Court has allowed to file counter affidavit and in the mean time, no coercive step would be taken. This is not a final order so much so that it does not relate to any beneficiary. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected during the enquiry, it is very difficult for this Court to hold that the court below has wrongly exercised its power, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1249 of 2011 (3) 3 / 4 3 Jay/- while taking cognizance. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1249 of 2011 (3) 4 / 4 4

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.