Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.46508 of 2006 =========================================================== Gulab Hussain Gulab Hussain, son of Md. Khalil, resident of village Biraicha, P.S.-Barauli, District-Gopalganj, at present posted as B.D.O. cum-Returning Officer, Sonepur, District-Saran. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1.State of Bihar & Anr1. State of Bihar 2. Sri Brijesh Mohan, Executive Magistrate, Nagar Panchayat, Sonepur, District- Saran. 3. The State Election Commission Panchayat Raj Bihar, Patna at Sone Bhawan, Patna. 4. The S.D.O., Sonepur, Saran .... .... Opposite Parties WITH Criminal Writ No. 863 of 2006 =========================================================== Bijay Kumar Mandal Bijay Kumar Mandal, Bijay Kumar Mandal son of Satya Narayan Mandal, resident of village-Lokmanpur, P.S.-Kharik, District-Bhagalpur, presently residing as Block Agricultue Officer, Sonepur, P.S.-Sonepur, District- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The State Election Commission, Patna 3. The Distict Magistrate, Saran at Chapra 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saran at Chapra 5. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Sonepur Police Station, District-Saran at Chapra. 7. Shree Brajesh Mohan, the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Sonepur, District-Saran at Chapra. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No. 46508 of 2006) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan Mr. Md. Sufiyan Mr. Bharat Bhushan For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Lochan For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P. (In CR. WJC No. 863 of 2006) For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhola Prasad Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh For the Respondents : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-05-2012 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46508 of 2006 dt.07-05-2012 2 Heard the parties. 2. Cr. Misc. No. 46508 of 2006 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Gulab Hussain invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereas Cr.W.J.C. No. 863 of 2006 has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Mandal. Petitioners in both the cases are named accused in Sonepur P.S. Case No. 138 of 2006 instituted under [STATUTE] and Section 130(17)(2) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Ordinance, 2006. The prayer in both the cases are common as the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R. By order dated 14.12.2007 Cr. Misc. No. 46508 of 2006 was admitted for hearing and it was directed that the case would be heard together with Cr.W.J.C. No. 863 of 2007 and Cr.W.J.C. No. 727 of 2007. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 727 of 2007 there are 19 petitioners, namely, 1. Surendra Prasad Singh, 2. Manoj Kumar, 3. Shambhu Nath Pandey, 4. Awadhesh Tiwary @ Awadh Tiwary, 5. Anil Kumar, 6. Gorakh Ram, 7. Suresh Ram, 8. Ram Jatan Mahto, 9. Upendra Nath Dadhichi, 10. Birendra Prasad Verma, 11. Rama Prasad Pathak, 12. Ramchandra Patra, 13. Arbind Kumar, 14. Arjun Manjhi, 15. Shiv Mangal Prasad, 16. Kameshwar Pd. Singh, 17. Badri Vishal Mishra, 18. Jitendra Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46508 of 2006 dt.07-05-2012 3 Rai and 19. Sudhir Kumar Sinha. They all were made named accused like petitioners of the cases being heard in the aforesaid Sonepur P.S. Case No. 138 of 2006 and they had also prayed in their petition for quashing of the said F.I.R. It appears that Cr.W.J.C. No. 727 of 2007 was taken up separately on 14.01.2008 and by a reasoned order a bench of this court dismissed the case of the petitioners in that case. The case of the petitioners of the two applications being taken up today stands on identical footing to that of the petitioners of Cr.W.J.C. No. 727 of 2007 which has already been dismissed by this court. 3. The case of the prosecution according to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, is that the accused persons engaged themselves in various mal-practices in counting of votes which constituted different offences under the Penal code and the Gram Panchayat Act, 2006. Their act of omission and commission is alleged to have materially affected the election of Mukhiya of Hasibpur Gram Panchayat. 4. From perusal of the written statement of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Sonepur dated 13.7.2006, it appears that offences alleged are made out against the petitioner and others named therein. 5. In the backdrop of the interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46508 of 2006 dt.07-05-2012 4 under chapter XIV and the principle of law relating to exercise of extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Apex Court has considered in several cases the scope of the High Court’s powers to quash F.I.R. registered against the accused persons. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal since reported in 1992 Supple (1) SCC 335 the Apex Court referred the several judicial precedents including those of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab since reported in A.I.R. 1960 (SC) 866, State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha since reported in 1980(1) SCC 554 and State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha since reported in (1982) 1 SCC 561 and held that the High Court could not embark upon an enquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing investigating agency to complete its task. 6. At the same time, the Apex Court in the said judgment identified the following cases in which FIR or complaint can 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 Patna High Court

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.