Case Facts:
CRIMINAL WRIT NO.437 OF 2010 For quashing of First Information Report of Ekama P.S. Case No. 80/2008 registered under [STATUTE] . --------------- 1. Triloki Prasad S/O Jitu Sah R/O Vill. Masaurahi Sati Asthan, P.O. Masaurahi Sathi Asthan, P.S. Masaurahi Sati Asthan And Distt. Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Executive Engineer, Saran Canal Division, Gandak Project, Ekama 3. Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division No. 2, Null R/O West Champaran 4. Superintending Engineer R/O Saran Canal, Anchal - Chapra 5. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department R/O Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kr. Mukund, Adv Mr. Rekha Mukund, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vijay Bharti, AC to SC 26 ================================================== P R E S E N T HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. Petitioner Triloki Prasad has sought for quashing of First Information Report of Ekama P.S. Case No. 80/2008 registered under [STATUTE] . 2. Briefly stated, Md. Raziuddin, Executive Engineer, Canal Division, Ekma filed written report disclosing therein that petitioner, Triloki Prasad who was posted as Assistant Engineer at present at West Champaran received his service book from the office of Superintending Engineer, Canal Division, Saran, Chapra vide 2 letter no. 1442 dated 25.8.2004 for getting his earned leave from 23.4.2003 to 2.5.2003 sanctioned but he had not deposited the same. Accordingly, he was requested. Further, it has been alleged that petitioner had informed that he had missed the same during the course of traveling and therefore on an order of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan so communicated vide letter no. 2289 dated 6.8.2008 instant case has been filed. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation whatever been put against the petitioner does not attract any of the penal provision rather in worst case, attracts departmental proceeding. Moreover, the petitioner has retired from his service on due date. Then submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner that on account of missing of service book he had taken any kind of undue advantage. 4. Further submitted that actually the prosecution was at fault who instead of departmental proceeded with for sanctioning the EL handed it over to petitioner for getting it sanctioned and it was unfortunate for the petitioner that during course of journey, he missed the same along with his other valuable articles. Also submitted that department had already constructed duplicate service book and on the basis thereof he had already superannuated on due date. As such, instant FIR is fit to be quashed. 3 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Bharti, AC to SC-26 opposed and submitted that though there happens to be no allegation against the petitioner that he tried to get undue advantage on account of missing of service book but it is an admitted fact that it was missed at the hands of petitioner and so petitioner is liable for the same. Therefore, registration of case is just, legal and proper. 6. After hearing rival contention and going through the record, it is evident that instant case has been registered on account of missing of service book of the petitioner from his possession. Whether it happens to be missed or illegally retained by the petitioner, is best known to him. However, missing/concealment of the service book when no further allegation of any malpractice/interpolation is there, really attracts any penal provision or it happens to be a case of gross negligence attracting departmental proceeding. It has never been alleged on behalf of the State that any malpractice has been at the hands of petitioner on account of absence of service book. There is also absence of allegation that on the basis thereof petitioner had succeeded in getting any pecuniary benefit which he was not entitled for. 7. In a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Hariyana & Ors. Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. The Hon’ble Apex Court has identified following categories including others wherein 4 prosecution can be quashed and those are :- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroveretd allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to 5 the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

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.