Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9225 of 2011 (3) dt.30-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9225 of 2011 ====================================================== Siddhnath Sharma, son of late Parmanand Sharma, resident of Village- Ekkil, P.S. Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 30-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.8.2010 passed in Tr. No. 802 of 2010, arising from Mukhadumpur P.S. Case No.290 of 2003 by the Sub Judge-I, Jehanabad by which the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner for offences under [STATUTE] . From the record it appears that the Block Development Officer has lodged the First Information Report stating therein that one Parmanand Sharma was entitled for pension under Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme and after his death in place of his widow, namely, Kamla Devi, one Vimla Devi, daughter-in-law of Parmanand Sharma was illegally withdrawing the pension and made a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9225 of 2011 (3) dt.30-07-2012 request to institute a case against Vimla Devi which led to filing of the present case. It also appears that during the investigation it was found that the petitioner was instrumental in whole episode and has also been made an accused in the case. An application for discharge was filed which was heard but the court below rejected the same by the impugned order and fixed the case for framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till today the court below has not framed the charge. He further submits that Kamla Devi and Vimla Devi are two different ladies and Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme is being paid to Kamla Devi not Vimla Devi and in support of his contention he has relied on different Annexures of this petition such as Annexures 6 series to show that earlier Vimla Devi was getting the benefit under Indira Awash Yojna and also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 which is a voter list prepared by the Election Commission where Vimla Devi has been shown wife of Sidhnath Sharma and Kamla Devi has been shown wife of Parmanand Sharma. He further submits that the First Information Report has been lodged against his wife and the petitioner has made accused unnecessarily in the case and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9225 of 2011 (3) dt.30-07-2012 for the act the wife, he can not be punished. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit filed today annexing copy of an affidavit of Kamala Devi where she has stated that it is Kamla Devi who was withdrawing pension not Vimla Devi and has also stated that pension paper also bears thumb impression of Kamla Devi. These are matters of evidence and it can not be seen at this stage. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all possible defence in the case before the court below to show that the pension was withdrawn by Kamla Devi wife of late Parmanand Sharma not Vimla Devi wife of the present petitioner. It appears that the allegation has been made against the petitioner that he was instrumental in withdrawing the money and the allegation as to whether the petitioner was any way involved in withdrawal of money will be considered by the court below and this can not be seen by this Court at this stage. It is expected that trial court while deciding the case would find out the identity of a person, who has withdrawn the money, whether it was withdrawn by Vimal Devi or Kamla Devi. If the petitioner would file an Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9225 of 2011 (3) dt.30-07-2012 application making request that thumb impression of Vimla Devi and Kamla Devi appearing in pension paper be compared with their admitted thumb impression, in that circumstance the court below would get a report from expert and would pass an order in a accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.