IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.373 of 2011 Bal Krishna Jha @ Bala Kant Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 3 22.12.2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned G.P.-17. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR bearing Waris Nagar P.S. Case No.49 of 2011 registered under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the I.P.C. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that neither he happens to be the executing authority nor is concerned with affair of the scheme which was approved under NAREGA nay any payment was made by him. Not only this, the muster roll so prepared was not in pen or at behest of petitioner. Therefore, complicity of petitioner is nowhere. The work was entrusted to the Panchayat Sebak and it was to be executed under direct control of J.E. Also submitted that neither he was noticed nor any opportunity was given to him during conduction of an inquiry and so the present FIR which is based upon the conclusion of aforesaid inquiry is not legally tenable. Then submitted that subsequently he has obtained certain relevant documents under Right to Information Act and those have been placed as Annexure of the supplementary affidavit from 2 which it transpires that the work so allotted was duly executed and the same is evident from letter no.888 /engineering dated 26.5.2010. Also submitted that the work was allotted during the financial year 2006-07 and the inspection has been done in the year 2010, so after expiry of four consecutive years it was not possible to visualized the work which was executed in the year 2006, although there happens to be permanent structure available which justify the execution of the work. In any view of the matter it has been submitted that continuance of instant FIR will be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of the court. At the other hand, learned G.P.-17 has submitted that he is unable to say anything because of the fact that no instruction has been furnished by the Department. The submission whatever been raised on behalf of petitioner happens to be a factual one. The aforesaid facts can be verified only during course of conduction of investigation. Therefore, quashing the FIR at the present stage does not appeal. Apart from this the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2010(7) SCC 667 at para- 19 has held “the High Court should normally refrain from giving a prama facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has 3 not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true prospective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage”. As such, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to place the relevant material before the Investigating Authority who will look into the matter during conduction of the investigation. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)