Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.884 of 2011 ====================================================== Durga Prasad Sah son of late Jayant Lal Sah, resident of village-Tapka (Balwa), P.S.-Katihar Muffasil, District-Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Jyoti Kumar Singh son of late Chandeshwar Prasad Singa at present postes as Programme Officer, Manrega, P.S. & District-Katihar 3. The District Magistrate-Katihar 4.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar 5.The Sub Divisional Officer, Katihar. 6.The District Certificate Officer, Katihar 7.The Block Development Officer, Katihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 14-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the first information report of Katihar Muffasil P.S. Case No.92 of 2011 dated 7.8.2011 registered for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the said first information report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The respondents have also initiated a certificate case against him for recovery of the amount in question alleged to have been defalcated Patna High Court CR. WJC No.884 of 2011 (3) dt.14-08-2012 2 by the petitioner in the first information report in question. The first information report, in question, has been initiated on the basis of the written information given by Jyoti Kumar Singh, Programme Officer (Manrega), Katihar. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is a P.D.S. dealer, was allotted foodgrains under the schemes of NFFW and SGRY. He did not return the undistributed rice which was to the tune of 463 quintals. Despite the notice given by the informant, the petitioner failed to deposit the foodgrains worth Rs. 06,34,310/-. The further allegation is that when the notice was issued to deposit the amount in cash in lie of rice at the rate of Rs.13.30 per kilogram the petitioner failed to respond. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner cheated and misappropriated the foodgrains entrusted by the Government under the aforesaid schemes. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have initiated a certificate case against the petitioner for realization of the amount equivalent to the price of foodgrains in question. According to the petitioner, continuance of criminal proceeding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be violative of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the State submits that the certificate case has been launched against the petitioner under the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.884 of 2011 (3) dt.14-08-2012 3 Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the “PDR Act”). The first information report, in question, has no concern with the alleged proceeding under the PDR Act. Having heard the parties I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the State. It is well settled that incident of occurrence may give rise to criminal prosecution as well as civil proceeding. The quashing of first information report exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to a very extreme exception. From the allegations made I find that the first information report discloses commission of cognizance offence. The credibility of the defence version or otherwise is not to be determined at this stage. So far as the second submission of the petitioner that there being a proceeding under the PDR Act against him with respect to the amount, in question, criminal prosecution for the same amount would not be maintainable is concerned, in my view, is also misplaced. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India is in the nature of an injunction against the State prohibiting it to prosecute and punish any person for the same offence more than once. An action for civil damages is not prosecution. An award under the PDR Act is not Patna High Court CR. WJC No.884 of 2011 (3) dt.14-08-2012 4 punishment. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that rule of double jeopardy is wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I find no merit in the present writ petition. It is dismissed, accordingly. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.