IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1156 of 2008 LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI, son of late Chhotelal, resident of Village & Post Office- Nahuv, P.S. Rajgir, District- Nalanda, presently working as Revenue clerk (Rajasva Karamchari) in the office of Circle Officer, Ariari, in the District of Sheikhpura. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar. 3. Zonal Inspector General of Police, Munger, Bihar. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger. 5. Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura in the district of Sheikhpura, Bihar. 6. Officer-in-charge – cum- Investigating officer, Ariari Police Station in the district of Sheikhpura. 7. Deputy Development Commissioner, in the district of Sheikhpura. 8. Assistant Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme, Sheikhpura in the district of Sheikhpura. 9. Programme Officer, Ariari Block in the district of Sheikhpura. 10. Block Development Officer, Ariari Block, in the District of Sheikhpura. 11. Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, State of Bihar, Patna. 12. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, State of Bihar, Patna. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant application, the petitioner prays for quashing the First Information Report of Ariari P.S. case no. 128 of 2008 dated 20.10.2008 under Sections 420, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, who was Rajasav Karamchari / Revenue Clerk in Ariari circle, was entrusted with 13 schemes to execute the work, all of the year 2006-07, details of which have been given in page 5 of the application as well as in the First Information Report. As per the First Information Report, the petitioner was entrusted a sum of Rs. 22,07,500/- and as per the measurement book the work has been done to the tune of Rs. 6,88,918/-, as such it has been alleged that Rs. 15,18,582/- is with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the - 2 - work has been completed in toto and the same would appear from the measurement book, which would be on the record of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the measurement book would show that work to the extent of the money given to him has been executed. He further submits that the measurement book would show that there was no misappropriation and a misconceived First Information Report was instituted against the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court observes that learned Magistrate while considering on the point of cognizance will also look into the measurement book, which is said to be on the record of investigation and thereafter would pass order in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)