IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13594 of 2010 Shashi Ranjan @ Harinandan Mahto, son of Jamun Mahto, R/O village- Hemjapur (Chand Tola), P.S. Dharhara, Distt- Munger. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Jangli Mahto, son of late Foudari Mahto, R/O village- Sunderpur, Chand Tola, P.S.Dharhara, Distt-Munger ------------------------ For petitioner:-Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Adv. For State:- Sri Rajendra Nath Jha, APP For O.P. No.2:- Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Adv. ---------------------- 3/ 02/12/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for O.P. No.2 along with learned Additional P.P. for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 9.10.2009 passed by CJM, Munger relating to Dharhara P.S. Case No. 59/2009, G.R. No. 940/2009 whereby and whereunder petitioner along with other has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that though at initial stage he was mere an employee under “Gramin Vikas Sahyog Samiti” but soon after July 2004 he relinquished on account of having been employed in a Government service which he is continuing possessing different post in different department including railway. It has also been submitted that the case has been instituted in the year 2009 as a result of which no criminal liability can be fixed upon him. Further, it has been 2 submitted that none of the witnesses have stated before the I.O. during the course of investigation that they have handed over money to the petitioner at any occasion. Not only this, the informant by having a petition subsequently filed exonerated him from any sort of allegation whatever been alleged during the course of registration of the case. So, it is a submission that summoning of petitioner to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC is bad and is, accordingly, fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 virtually supported the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP opposed and submitted that from the statement of witnesses recorded during course of investigation suggest that petitioner including, Rajkumar Singh and Umesh Prasad Singh have formed an NGO/Co-operative at the village level known and styled as “Gramin Vikas Sahyog Samiti” in the year 2003 and since thereafter they have duped the depositors who become a member and deposited the amount which was subsequently digested. So the criminal intention of the petitioner along with others happens to be there since the inception of “Gramin Vikas Sahyog Samiti”. Consequent thereupon, petitioner cannot be exonerated from the criminal liability that too at the present stage for which only prima facie case has to be found sufficient for justifying the petitioner to 3 face trial. Also referred paragraph-4, further statement of the informant, 5, 6, 7, 8 and along with other prosecution witnesses. Also submitted that main accused, Rajkumar Singh was apprehended and who also made his extra judicial confessional statement recorded under paragraph-17 of the case diary wherein presence of petitioner does find place. The principle for quashing the order of cognizance has been elaborately dealt with in a case reported in a decision AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Hariyana & Ors. Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. The Hon’ble Apex Court has identified following categories including others wherein prosecution can be quashed and those are :- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroveretd allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not 4 disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Now, having a conjoint reading with the allegation so 5 put along with the principles so laid down by the Apex Court, the case in hand does not fit in. Consequent thereupon, I find no merit in this petition and is, accordingly, rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)