Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.291 of 2012 ====================================================== Jairam Sharma S/O Late Harbans Singh R/O Moh-Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S.Aurangabad, Distt-Aurangabad, At Present Posted As Junior Engineer, Quality Control Division, Water Resources Department , Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Gaya 3. Ram Lakhan Mahto S/O Not Known R/O Vill-+P.S.Cheotaha, Distt- West Champaran, Bettiah, At Present Executive Engineer, Quality Control Division, Water Resources Department , Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. ORDER 3. 18-07-2012 Petitioner has sought for quashing of Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No.64/2011 registered under [STATUTE] . Ram Lakhan Mahto, Junior Engineer filed written report as per direction of the District Magistrate, Aurangabad bearing an allegation that petitioner Jairam Sharma, Junior Engineer had not joined at Base Godown, Aurangabad by 09-02- 2012 and by such action he had prevented / obstructed function of the Government. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the allegation whatever been incorporated in the written report does -2- not attract any penal provision. Further submitted that actually petitioner was ill and on account thereof he was not able to join at Base Godown, Aurangabad and for that he had already intimated the authority concerned apart from asking for medical leave. So institution of the case is nothing but misuse of power. At the other hand the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that by keeping himself absent petitioner had prevented smooth functioning of the official duty so directed and as such institution of the case is justifiable. The first infirmity coming out from Annexure-1 (F.I.R.) happens to be that the date of occurrence has been shown as 09-02-2012, the written report was filed on 11.02.2012 but the FIR contains the number 64/11. How a number of a case that too of previous year has been acknowledged for coming year is a matter of concern and further, it has not been properly explained by the State. The second theme that none of the sections where under case has been registered is coming out from the narration of the written report because of the fact that under [STATUTE] , force has to be used /or assault has to be made by the accused by which a public servant has been deterred during discharge of his official function and in likewise manner Section 166 speaks -3- regarding intending to cause injury to any person by making disobedience of law. From narration of the written report it is evident that there happens to be disobedience of administrative order by a government servant by not joining by specified date, and as such there happens to be absence of any of the ingredient for application of [STATUTE] . and for that utmost departmental proceeding is required. In a leading decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Hariyana & Ors. Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. the following criteria has been identified whereupon the prosecution is liable to be quashed: “(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 the institution and -4- 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 ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Thus, taking into account the allegation as held on its face no offence is made out, hence the criteria so identified as detailed above has an impression in its true sense. Consequent thereupon FIR of Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. No.64/11 is hereby quashed. Thus, petition is allowed. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 166

Statute Text:
Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.