IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.176 of 2009 1. MAHA DEVI, wife of Shiv Kumar Singh, Resident of village-Azorbare, P.O.-Azorbare, P.S.-Phenhara, District-East Champaran. 2. SRI. NARAYAN SINGH, son of late-Haro Singh, Resident of village- Dulama, P.O.-Dulama, P.S.-Madhuban, District-East Champaran. …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Human Resource Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 4. The District Superintendent of Educatiion, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. 6. Panchayati Raj Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakaridayal, East Champaran. 8. The Block Development Officer, Phenhara Block, East Champaran. 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Phenahara Block, East Champaran. 10. The Headmaster, Rajkiya Utakarmit Middle School, Chaknasiba, Bare Parsauni Panchayat, Phenhara Block, East Champaran. 11. The Officer Incharge, Phenhara Police Station, East Champaran. 12. The Head Master, Primary School, Azorbara Urdu North, Bara Parsauni Panchayat, Phenahara Block, East Champaran. 13. Md. Muruf Alam, S/o-Abdul Rasid, Resident of Gaibandhi, P.S.- Phenhara, District-East Champaran. 14. Sunil Kumar Paswan, S/o-Gulten Paswan, Resident of Gaibandhi, P.S.-Phenhara, District-East Champaran. …….Respondents. ----------- 03. 05.10.2009 Petitioners have filed this application for quashing of Phenhara P.S. Case No. 2/09 dated 11.01.2009 as instituted by Block Education Extention Officer, Phenhara, East Champaran pursuant to the directions of the Collector, East Champaran. The said case has been instituted under Sections 166, 188, 406, 409, 418, 419, 420 and 120’B’ of the Indian penal Code. The petitioners submit that they are Mukhiya - 2 - and Panchayat Secretary respectively of Bara Prasauni Panchayat and are being sought to be prosecuted for non payment of remuneration to two Siksha Mitra. It is not the allegation that the money has been misappropriated but the allegation is that in spite of repeated orders of the Collector, East Champaran to make payment, petitioners are refusing to make payment. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on the face of it there is no criminality involved. At best it would be disobedience of directions of Collector which even otherwise is not binding on the petitioners. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The First Information Report is Annexure-10. That by itself, it does not give out anything except that pursuant to the directions of the Collector the First Information Report is being lodged for necessary action. Annexures thereto are various correspondences. The genesis of the entire event is contained as a part of Annexure-9, the letter of Block Education Extention Officer, dated 02.09.2008 to the District Superintendent of Education. This contains these entire story. All that is said is that the two persons (Siksha Mitra) who are appointed under the government Rules for Panchayat Siksha Mitra Rules, 2003 for a fixed period of 33 months - 3 - were not paid their salary for the part of the period in spite of directions of the Collector in that regards and in spite of fund being available to the Panchayat. Reading this as a whole, in my view, does not constitute any criminal offence much less as alleged. For the purpose of disposal of the present application, it may be noted that petitioners challenge the very authority of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector to issue such directions. It is submitted that in local self government under the Panchayati Raj, it is the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary who have to take appropriate decisions in this matter. They had taken disciplinary action against the two Siksha Mitra and it is pursuant to that their remunerations were withheld. The collector is not the appellate authority in such matters nor was any appeal preferred against any order by the petitioners before any competent authority. In view of the aforesaid, the F.I.R. not disclosing commission of any cognizable offence, the very institution thereof is an abuse of process of Court and it is held accordingly. The F.I.R. is accordingly quashed and no further proceeding is taken pursuant thereto. The writ application is allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)