IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.468 of 2010 1. SARJU PRASAD @ SARJUG PRASAD S/o Late Rajdeo Singh, Resident of village- Akuri, P.S. Paliganj, Distt. Patna. 2. Kamla Kant S/o Late Sarju Prasad, Resident of Kmalpur, P.S. Dhina, District- Chandauli (U.P.). 3. Suresh Prasad S/o Late Ganesh Prasad, Resident of State Bank Chauke, Gopalganj, P.S. Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. Officer-in-charge, Akodhigola, Police Station, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. Officer-in-charge, Darihat Police Station, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. Officer-in-charge, Sasaram (M) Police Station, District Rohtas at Sasaram. . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. B.J. Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate AC to G.P.15 ----------- 4/ 02.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the instant application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in respect to Akodhigola P.S. case no. 29 of 2003 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the I.P.C. The petitioners are the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer posted in Tube well Department. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it would appear from the letter no. 395 dated 26.04.2003 issued by the Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Sasaram, Camp Dihri that a complaint was made to file F.I.R. only against the contractor, namely Rajkumar Singh. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the F.I.R. was instituted against him only. Learned counsel submits that in course of investigation, the police without any material basis has not only submitted charge-sheet against these petitioners but has exonerated the 2 sole F.I.R. accused Rajkumar Singh. Learned counsel submits that the Chief Engineer has issued a general instruction in respect of removal of defects in relation to the work being carried by the contractors. It has been stated that if any defect in the work has remained or if the same has not been completed, an opportunity should be provided to rectify the same and after the final measurement, the payments are to be made. Learned counsel submits that sufficient amount is already kept, as earnest money, and subsequently it is found that extra amount has been paid, the same can be adjusted. He further submits that a meeting was held on 21.03.2003 under the Chairmanship of Project Coordinator, in which it was found that the work was completed in a satisfactory manner. A report in this respect was also submitted on 05.02.2003 vide letter no. 291. A copy of the report has been annexed as Annexure-4. Counsel for the State submits that the superior authorities made assessment of the work done by the contractor and they found that sufficient work was to be done and still money has been withdrawn and payment has been made. Learned counsel for the State has referred to Annexure-A, which is report of S.P. Rohtas. In the report, it has been stated that subsequently the contractor has completed the work after lodging of the F.I.R. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, in his report also noted that without completion of work, wrong entries has been made in the measurement book, on which payment has been made. Heard counsel for the parties. The officials while instituting a case ought to see that they abide by the instructions issued by the competent authorities. It is not a case that the materials available on the 3 record do not disclose any prima facie case, if the same remains unrebutted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516, after analyzing catena of cases on the issues observed that prosecution need not be quashed, if the allegations appearing on the record disclosed a cognizable offence. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to quash the prosecution case. However, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate court, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)