IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33277 of 2009 Dr. B. N. Pandey, son of Late Vidya Nand Pandey, Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, PS Magadh University P.S., District Gaya – petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Shri K.K. Pathak, Secretary, Department of HRD, New Secretariat, Patna. 3) Shri Prakash Ranjan Kumar, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Gaya. 4) Shri K. P. Rammiyah, the then Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 5) Shri Arjun Prasad, Officer Incharge, Magadh University P.S., Bodh Gaya. 6) Vigilance Investigation Bureau, patna – opposite parties. … For the petitioner : Mr.Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Priyank Deepak and Ms. Nutan Sahay, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G. III. 7 6.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. of Magadh University PS Case No. 059 of 2009 lodged against the petitioner, the erstwhile Vice Chancellor of Magadh University for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 504, 506 and 353 of the Penal Code, section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also section 3(1)(X) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On 22.8.2008 the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya addressed a letter to the petitioner asking him for the documents relating to appointments in the Magadh University which were allegedly made on non-sanctioned posts without following the procedures. The petitioner was to file his show cause by 27.8.2008. On 26.8.2008 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner of the Division asking for time till 4.9.2008 to supply all the documents on the ground that the college was closed due to Janmastmi and also 2 because there was a function hosted by the Magadh University. On 28.8.2009 the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department addressed a letter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya and asked him to institute an F.I.R. in view of the enquiry report, dated 27.8.2008. The Regional Deputy Director accordingly instituted an F.I.R. on 29.8.2009 which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report, dated 27.8.2008 which is part of the F.I.R. on the basis of which the F.I.R. has been instituted indicates that allegations have levelled without looking into any documents or examining them or are on basis of unanimous letters and hearsay evidence. The petitioner by letter no. 386/G-1A, dated 29.8.2008 had already submitted para-wise reply along with the annexures with respect to the allegations levelled against him to the Commissioner of the Division which were not taken into consideration or examined before instituting the F.I.R. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been instituted in a hurried manner, without actually considering the documents filed by him on 29.8.2008 much before lodging of the F.I.R. and as such it appears to be a malafide action sponsored by some politicians and persons aggrieved for one reason or the other which cannot be gone into by this court. It would have been fair and just if the Secretary of the Department would have considered the explanation filed by the petitioner vide letter, dated 29.8.2008 before 3 passing of the order for lodging of the F.I.R. It is submitted that such action amounts to harassment and has caused embarrassment to the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Kishore, A. A. G. III appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the F.I.R. has been instituted and at this stage the court ought not to interfere in the matter as the State does not intend to arrest the petitioner or take any action against him unless a thorough enquiry is made in the matter. It is fairly conceded that the investigating authorities would be bound to consider the explanation and the documents presented by the petitioner vide letter, dated 29.8.2008 and no coercive action would be taken by the authorities until all aspects of the matter are thoroughly enquired. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chancellor has also issued a show cause notice to him and the petitioner has filed his show cause before the Chancellor which is also being considered by him and as such the investigating authorities ought to wait for the findings of the Chancellor before proceeding with the investigation for the reason that if the Chancellor comes to a conclusion that the petitioner was not responsible for making the appointments and the cancellation were made by him as soon as he got the knowledge that illegal appointments have been made, it is submitted, that the action of the State would amount to harassment as the petitioner would have to unnecessarily face the criminal proceeding as well. Since the matter is now under investigation and there is 4 an undertaking by the State Government that a thorough enquiry would be made and it would consider the show cause filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, I do not see any reason to quash the F.I.R. at this stage as the case is at its preliminary stage. Before parting with the case, I must observe that the inclusion of section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is quite unwarranted as there is no offence made out against the petitioner under the said Act. Section 3(1)(X) of the Act provides punishment for offences of atrocities whoever not being a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe in any place within public view” shall be liable to be convicted under the Act. There is not a single word in the F.I.R. which indicates that the petitioner had committed any such act which would come under the provisions of section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the direction that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner in the present case until thorough enquiry is made and submission of charge sheet after considering the show cause filed by him. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)