IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30498 of 2007 SANTOSH THAKUR son of Late Parmanand Thakur resident of village Siswa, P. S. Pandaul, District Madhubani. …. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR …. Opp. Party ----------- 6. 27.08.2009. Heard Sri N. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this application, the prayer is for quashing of the first information report itself on the ground that on a plain reading thereto no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner in the capacity of Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and in this connection he places reliance on an interim order of this Court in this case. Mr. Agarwal, while referring to earlier interim order of this Court dated 20.9.2007 passed in this case has highlighted that this Court itself was of a prima facie view that the petitioner may have acted bonafide in accepting the mark-sheets of the concerned candidate, Binod Kumar Ram by believing them to be true while selecting preparing merit list and appointing Binod Kumar Ram as Shiksha Mitra. Mr. Agarwal, goes to rely on that part the said - 2 - interim order dated 20.9.2007 “if some forged document has been created and filed, liability should be on the shoulder of Binod Kumar Ram and not on this petitioner”. In the opinion of this Court the said interim order has recorded only a tentative view and that too on a false impression created by the petitioner. In this connection from the order dated 20.3.2007 it appears that this Court was guided by a wrong impression created by the counsel for the petitioner had not been made an accused in this case. The records including counter affidavit filed by S.P. Madhubani in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 20.9.2007 goes to show that Binod Kumar Ram, earlier not named in the first information report, was made a non-FIR accused, taken into custody and charge-sheet had been submitted against him. In that view of the matter, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that Binod Kumar Ram alone was responsible for his appointment by producing a forged mark- sheet and that the petitioner in capacity of Mukhiya who had made verification of mark-sheet and issued appointment letter had committed no - 3 - offence as specifically alleged in the impugned F.I.R. Mr. Agarwal then on the basis of circular of the State Government and the earlier existing system prevailing in the appointment of Shiksha Mitra, would submit that there was hardly any machinery provided to Mukhiya to find out genuineness or otherwise of the mark-sheet produced by a candidate. The responsibility entrusted on the post of Mukhiya by virtue of Gram Panchayat Act or subsequent circular issued even in respect of appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra being an onerous, the Mukhiya of any Gram Panchayat including the petitioner will have to always carry out that responsibility because such power is coupled with the duty. That being so, only because the petitioner did not or could not make proper action for verification of the mark-sheet cannot be a ground for quashing the first information report. His such plea can at best be a plea of defence which may be looked only at an appropriate stage of the trial. Prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. can be allowed by - 4 - this Court only if no. offence at al can be said to be made out from the reading of the F.I.R. That is however not the case in hand inasmuch as there is a direct allegation against the petitioner in making appointment for pecuniary gain. Mr. Agrawal, at this stage would submit that the petitioner may be at least given liberty to move before the appropriate court if and when charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken against the petitioner. This application, being thus devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty as prayed for. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)