IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25216 of 2007 Md. Noor Alam Ansari, Son of Amir Hasan, Resident of Village Rajkhand, Police Station Muffasil, District Samastipur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Ramchandra Jha, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Subdivision, Barauni, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai. ---------- Opposite Parties ----------- 8 4.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer in this application is to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Phulwariya P.S. Case No. 54 of 2003 lodged for an offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Prakirti Enterprises and some unknown employees of the Electrical Supply Subdivision, Barauni. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the petitioner is named in the First Information Report nor he had any connection with the work of Prakirti Enterprises and therefore, his being merely named in course of investigation should be a good ground for quashing the First Information Report and the criminal proceeding so far it 2 relates to him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner actually was not an employee of the revenue wing and was a Chaukidar and therefore, his involvement is automatically ruled out in such deal of Prakirti Enterprises which relates to the revenue wing. This Court can quash the First Information report only if the allegation made therein read as a whole does not constitute any offence. From the First Information Report, in question, it is clear that the Board was subjected to certain loss on account of tampering of the record as also other acts on the part of the Prakirti Enterprises in league with the employees of the Board. Who would be such employees was a matter of investigation and in course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has transpired. the extent of involvement however cannot be examined at this stage for the purpose of quashing the First Information Report. The defence of the petitioner that he was not the employee of the revenue wing and therefore he would not be liable for the offence as alleged in F.I.R. can also not be looked into for 3 quashing of the First Information Report. A First Information Report as noted above can only be quashed if by reading thereof no offence is made out as was held by the Apex Court in the case of J.A.C. Saldhana Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 326. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and in fact is aimed only to delay the filing of the charge-sheet as against the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)