IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.732 of 2009 KAVITA DEVI wife of Sri Sudhir Sharma, resident of village:- Singarpur, Panchayat –Kajhiya, Block + P.S. + District- Banka. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary, Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Banka, District- Banka. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Banka, District- Banka. 5. The Child Development Programme Officer, Banka, District- Banka. 6. The Officer-in-charge, of P.S. Banka, District- Banka. 7. The A.S.I. of P.S. Banka, District- Banka. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing the entire investigation and proceeding of Banka P.S. case no. 93 of 2006, dated 19.03.2006 registered under Sections 186/409, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is Anganwari Sevika of Singarpur Aanganwari Kendra situated at village Singarpur. In order to examine the relief prayed for by the petitioner, it would be relevant to note the allegations made in the First Information Report in short. The informant, who is C.D.P.O. Banka alleged that the villagers informed her that Aanganwari Kendra has remained closed for last 8-9 months and the rations are not being distributed to the children and the pregnant women. It is stated in the First Information Report that a sum of Rs.5302.50 is disbursed every month. The petitioner along with others misappropriated the aforesaid amount. It is further alleged that despite request, the petitioner did not bring the registers, files and related documents for perusal and verification. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are absolutely false. He further submits that neither the Aanganwari Kendra was closed for 8-9 months nor any misappropriation has been made. He further submits that the Aanganwari Kendra has earlier been inspected by the ladies Supervisor, Rekha Kumari and Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and they did not report any irregularity. The villagers present during the course of inspection of the informant, have sworn affidavit regarding the falsity of the prosecution case. Copies of the affidavit sworn by the villagers are annexed as Annexure-3 Series. Furthermore, 215 people of the village have filed their applications before the District Magistrate, Banka regarding the false implication of the petitioner. Copy of the applications have been annexed as Annexure-4 Series. Learned counsel submits that the allegation regarding non-showing of registers and documents is false as the petitioner has handed it over to the office of the informant for the purposes of audit in January, 2006. He further submits that assertion of the informant regarding disbursement of money and withdrawal of the same is also not correct. In this respect, the petitioner has annexed statement of Account dated 14.07.2006 issued S.B.I., Banka, as contained in Annexure-7. He states that there is difference in the version of the informant regarding receipt of money and withdrawal and vis-à-vis the actual disbursement of the money. He further submits that in appropriate cases, this Court can direct for fresh investigation. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in case of Hasanbhai - 3 - Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in 2004(3) PLJR SC 287. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit. The counsel appearing for the State by referring to paragraph 8 submits that on investigation, the case has been found true under Section 409, 186, 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that he has given the details of the amount that has been disbursed by cheques in different months. Thus, he submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and process under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued. Heard counsel for the parties. In the instant case, charge- sheet has been submitted. It is not in dispute, that if the investigation is accentuated with malafide or is misdirected, this Court can interfere in such cases. However, I do not find this case to be an appropriate case in which fresh investigation need to be ordered. If petitioner is aggrieved by filing charge-sheet or in case, if cognizance is taken against her, it would be open to her to challenge the same. It will be also open to the petitioner to represent to the higher officials in respect of her grievances. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)