IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.441 of 2011 Ram Chandra Rai Versus The State Of Bihar Through Sec ---------------------------------- 4 08.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned G.A.-7. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR of Vaishali P.S. Case No.38 of 2011 registered under Section 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC which has been instituted against the petitioner alone in a capacity of being Mukhiya of Rahimpur Panchayat. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that by Letter No.BREDA/SPU/1/04-05 dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure-2) the purchase of solar system was to be made through Beltron as well as from the identified retailers whose list has been released by Government of India. It has been further submitted that aforesaid purchase was made from the retailer so identified by the Government of India and in the aforesaid background, the purchase cannot be accepted as fraudulent one. Then submitted that subsequently the District Magistrate, Vaishali through its letter no.77/confidential/Hajipur dated 14.1.2011 has confined the purchase only from Beltron and if any irregularity is found therein, he be accordingly intimated. That means to say the subsequent purchase after the aforesaid letter (Annexure-3) was to be guided in terms of Annexure-3. However, the aforesaid Annexure-3 cannot /should not command the purchase already made that too in accordance with circular (Annexure-2). So submission is that there is no fault on the part of petitioner in getting the solar light installed within his panchayat. 2 Also submitted that Gram Panchayat happens to be a constitutional recognized institution and so its function should not be interfered in the present manner as the District Magistrate is not at all authorized. Hence the institution of the case in the background of Annexure-3 is nothing but an illegal act through which the power and function of Gram Panchayat has been encroached by the authorities who did not possess such power. In sum and substance, prayer is that the FIR of Vaishali P.S. Case No.38 of 2011 be quashed. At the other hand the learned G.A.-7 submitted that up till investigation identified the petitioner to be a culprit. Further submitted that the summary of the finding of investigation has been given before the court by way of counter affidavit. Also submitted that the argument whatever been raised on behalf of petitioner can be verified during course of investigation by the investigating authority if the petitioner so place it. Also submitted that the allegation on its face itself suggest that petitioner is responsible in siphoning the government money, therefore prosecution does not appear to be barred under law. So far initiation of an investigation more particularly cognizable offence is concerned, anybody can take the law into motion. There is no deficiency persisting on record so far commencement of investigation is concerned. Admittedly, the investigation is going on. There is no law which could prohibit the investigation to proceed further. Whether at this juncture the prayer of the petitioner is justified? The same has properly been answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2006(1) SCC (Cri) page 324 wherein at para-2 it has been 3 observed: “By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed FIR No.55 dated 27.04.2001. The FIR was registered against four respondents for having committed theft of cheel logs from the forest of Kukanet. In sum and substance, the allegation is of illegal felling of trees and theft of the same from the forest. Curiously, the High Court by entering into the factual arena has passed the impugned order quashing the FIR. Such a course is wholly impermissible. The High Court acted mere as an investigating agency at a stage when the FIR was under investigation. At this stage, we wish to say no more lest it may prejudice the parties”. Thus, I do not see the prayer of the petitioner legally tenable. Consequent thereupon, petition is rejected. However, petitioner will be at liberty to place the relevant facts before the investigating authority to show his innocence. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) ,