IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56632 of 2007 MITHILESH KUMAR @ MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. ANR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd.Singh, Sr.Advocate. For opp.party: Mr. Ganesh Pd.Singh, Sr.Advocate and For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhya and U.L.Verma. --------- 5. 04.05.2010. Heard the petitioner, Opp.party no. 2 and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR bearing Parihar Police Station case no. 35 of 2007 dated 6.4.2007, lodged for offence under sections 386, 353,379/34 of the I.P.C. The informant, Anshu Priya, a Primary teacher, Rajkiya Primary School Ramnaka, Sitamarhi stated that on 6.4.2007, the petitioner who happens to be the Block Education Extension Officer, Parihar, Sitamarhi along with two persons, namely, Udaykant Chaudhary and Hari Narayan Rai came in the school and pressurized her for taking back date joining of Hari Narayan Rai, as a teacher of the school with effect from 1.12.2006. When the informant refused to oblige him, he abused and forced her to sign on a register showing Hari Narayan Rai to have reported on duty on 1.12.2006 and present up to 24.12.2006. Petitioner also took away the original attendance register with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against him are false as he could not enforce joining of any teacher as the same is handiwork of Panchayat after coming into effect the Panchayat Act, 2006. On the other hand, on - 2 - inspection, he found certain irregularities and vide memo no. 153 dated 7.4.2007 he asked the Panchayat Secretary to take action against the informant and another Panchayat teacher, copy of memo dated 7.4.2007 is annexed to the petition as annexure 2. The Panchayat Secretary vide letter no. 5 dated 12.4.2007 issued show cause to the informant and another pancnayat teacher, copy of letter is marked as annexure 3. Secretary/Mukhia of the Panchayat suspended the informant with effect from 7.9.2007. When the petitioner learnt about the lodging of instant FIR, he wrote on 4.5.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi vide letter no. 82 requesting him to exonerate from these false charges, a copy of letter is annexed as annexure 5. The petitioner submits that he has no concern with the said Hari Narayan Rai and it is the informant who herself accepted the joining of Hari Narayan Rai earlier and thereafter he was not allowed to put his signature in the Attendance register, copy of application of Secretary is annexed as annexure 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Ramchandra Paswan, a Panchayat teacher of the school and witness to the occurrence has informed the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi that the allegation against the petitioner is false and motivated, a copy of his application is marked as annexure 7. He further submitted that the Head master Motiur Rahman was also present in the School on the day of occurrence but he has not made any complaint either before police or before the authorities of the department. - 3 - A counter affidavit has been filed annexing office order of the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi stating that allegations made by informant against the petitioner has been enquired into and found to be true against him and consequential suspension of the informant has been revoked. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of the District Magistrate has been challenged in writ petition before the High Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegation of informant giving rise to Parihar Police Station case no. 35/2007 was supervised by the Dy.S.P., Headquarters-2, Sitamarhi and offences under sections 386,353,379,420,465,466,167,468,469,471 and 120B I.P.C. against the petitioner, Uday Kant Chaudhary and Mukesh Kumar, teachers posted in office of petitioner and Hari Narayan Rai were found to be true. Having heard the parties and after going through the materials on record, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the FIR of Parihar Police Station case no. 35/2007. As such, this application is dismissed. However, dismissal of application would not come in the way of petitioner in putting his side of case before the Investigating officer or the supervising officer regarding his innocence. In case, petitioner is aggrieved by subsequent filing of charge sheet, it would be open for him to challenge the same before appropriate forum. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)