IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1312 of 2010 SRI AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SHUKLA SON OF SRI HEMANT KUMAR SHUKLA, THE THEN CIRCLE OFFICER, KANTI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, RESIDENT OF C-2, SHYAM KUTIR, BUDH MARG, BARIYATU, P.S. BARIYATU, DISTRICT- RANCHI (JHARKHAND) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. SRI RANVIR SINGH, SON OF LATE CHAMRU SINGH, POLICE INSPECTOR, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATION BUREAU-6, CIRCULAR ROAD, PATNA 3. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF KAPILDEO THAKUR, SOCIAL WORKER, L.J.P., KANTI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAYAN BHERIYAHI, P.S. KANTI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Vigilance. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the first information report vide Vigilance Case No. 80 of 2009 registered on 30th July, 2009 ( Special Case No. 28 of 2009) as contained in Annexure-2 for the alleged offence under sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 11 & 13(1)( C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on perusal of the first information report itself no offence is made out and secondly it is submitted that the petitioner is protected for the discharge of his official duty. Besides, it is submitted that the issue with regard to the issuance of the Basgit Parcha is under consideration before the Collector under the concerned statutory provision, and as such, without proper verification of the facts the present F.I.R. has been lodged which deserves to be quashed. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Vigilance on the other hand submits that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. constitutes a serious offence on the part of the petitioner as being the Anchaladhikari at the material time the said Parcha was issued for ulterior gain misusing the official position, and as such, the information given to the Officer-in- Charge of the Vigilance Police Station constitutes an offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement made in paragraph 28 of the application that cognizance has been taken against the accused persons including the petitioner has been mentioned due to inadvertence and as such it may be ignored. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, since the truthfulness or otherwise of the matter with regard to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. will come out only after investigation, as such, no interference is called for. Notwithstanding the above, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the investigation of the aforesaid vigilance case be completed expeditiously without unnecessary delay and upon completion of investigation police report be submitted forthwith. The writ application accordingly stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)