IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.3571 OF 2009 KUMARI ANITA CHOUDHARY, WIFE OF DR. DIPAK KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAGDISHPUR, POLICE STATION PATEHDI BELSAND, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BEHIYAN BLOCK, DISTRICT BHOJPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. MD. ASLAM ANSARI, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. P. MEHTA, A.P.P. ********** 3 08/09/2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.07.2008 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa (Nalanda) has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in Hilsa Police Station Case No. 09 of 2008. The petitioner is the Child Development Project Officer posted at Hilsa. The matter relates to appointment of Aanganbari Sevikas. On 24.04.2007, Aanganbari Sevikas were appointed in different panchayats. This particular case relates to Aanganbari Centre, Ward No. 10, Rabidas Tola. The Appointment Committee, as per the guidelines laid down by the State Government, consists of several members. The Chairman of the Committee is the Mukhiya of the Panchayat. The Deputy Chairman is the Up-Mukhiya of the Panchayat. The Child Development Project Officer is 2 the special invitee to the said appointment committee whereas there are several other persons who are members of the said appointment committee. The petitioner found that anomalies have been committed in the process of appointment and, therefore, addressed a letter no. 223 dated 17.05.2007 to the District Welfare Officer, Nalanda pointing out that the person appointed as Aanganbari Sevika in Rabidas Tola was not a resident of the said Tola and as such a illegality had been committed in the said appointment. On the basis of the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Child Welfare Officer, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer who was appointed by the District Magistrate to conduct such an enquiry. The Sub Divisional Officer submitted its report to the District Magistrate who ordered that First Information Report should be instituted against the Chairman of the Appointment Committee. The First Information Report specifically states that the Chairman of the Committee i.e. Uma Devi is responsible for making the appointment of Aanganbari Sevikas. However, column 17 of the First Information Report indicates that apart from the Chairman of the Appointment Committee, other persons of the Committee have also been shown in the accused column. 3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no material to show that the petitioner in conspiracy with the Chairman of the Committee had facilitated the appointment of the Aanganbari Sevikas in the manner in which it was done, rather it is submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint and it is on the basis of that complaint filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the First Information Report was ultimately instituted. Considering that the enquiry report does not indicate that the petitioner was involved in the appointment of Aanganbari Sevikas or was in conspiracy with the Chairman of the Committee in question, coupled with the facts that the petitioner was the person who brought the anomaly in the alleged appointment to the notice of the Authority, it cannot be said that any offence is made out under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as far as it relates to the petitioner. The plain reading of the First Information Report indicates that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged appointment. This case also comes under the exception (i) provided by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it has been stated as 4 follows:- 1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, 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. Considering the discussions aforesaid, the order taking cognizance dated 30.07.2008 is quashed so far as the above named petitioner is concerned. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)