IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19201 of 2010 BRIJ NANDAN PRASAD S/O LATE ATWARI PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- PURANGAMA, P.O+ P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA ……………… Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU.A.D.G.VIG. …………. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Sr. Adv. Manish Sahay Adv. Pankaj Kumar Singh Adv. For Vigilance : Arvind Kumar ----------------------- 3. 01.03.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance- II, Patna in Special Case No. 12/2008, by which he has taken cognizance under Section 420,467,468,471,406,409,201,120-B I.P.C. and under Sections 7/8/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was a Govt. Contractor and there was an agreement with the department of PWD with regard to the 39 works to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly defaulted in execution of one work since during an inspection of the works executed by him, it was found that out of 4 wash basins to be fitted by him one wash basin was fitted while one was found on the floor and two wash basins were missing. It has been submitted that even assuming the allegations as true since the work had been executed on the basis of an agreement and there were clauses 13 and 16 in the agreement that the contractor would remove any deficiency that had occurred in execution of work if notice resorting to the Criminal Court is noting but an abuse of the process of Court. It has further been submitted that the alleged inspection was done one year of the completion of work and the petitioner should not be held liable for the missing wash basins as also non-fitted, one which was kept on the floor after such a long time. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Vigilance has submitted that there was total defalcation of 1,00,000/- in the works executed by the various contractors and, therefore, the petitioner should not be singly given advantage of such a plea. On going through the order impugned as also the materials emerging in the case, I am of the view, that at best it would be a case of irregularity, if at all, and the facts of the case do not warrant a criminal case to be instituted against him. In view of such, the application is allowed and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance- II, Patna in Special Case No. 12/2008 is hereby set aside in so far as it relates to the petitioner. In the result, the application stands allowed. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )