IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.426 of 2010 Shyam Kishore Kumar Versus State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 4 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The prayer is for quashing of the first information report vide Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 100 of 2010, registered on 11th of March, 2010 for the alleged offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 406, 409, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being the office clerk of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority of which co- accused Ghamandi Ram was a member of the said Authority. It is further submitted that whatever orders were passed by the said Ghamandi Ram was carried out by this petitioner in discharge of his function, and as such, his action does not amount to an offence and is protected in terms of the provisions of sections 77 & 78 of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2007 (1) B.L.J., 146. Accordingly, it is submitted that the aforesaid police case deserves to be quashed. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the State although has not filed any counter affidavit however submits that the allegations which would be appearing on basis of the present first information report has been lodged against the petitioner are to the effect that he in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Ghamandi Ram forging the documents made re-employment of the Sikhsa Mitra for their ulterior pecuniary benefits, and as such, the action of the petitioner and other co-accused cannot be protected in law as submitted by the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the allegations made in the first information report vide Annexure-3 read with Annexure-2, it would appear that the primary allegation is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy committed the offence of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust as also tampering with the documents in order to make appointment of the Sikhsa Mitra who were not entitled for re-employment. The decision cited on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said decision the issue was that the order passed by the Revenue Authority for grant of the rent receipt upon accepting the case of one party was subjected to a criminal proceeding. This Court quashed the criminal proceeding on the ground to the effect that such orders 3 were passed in discharge of the functions authorized under law. However, in the case in hand the allegation is of commission of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, committing forgery and making fraudulent reappointment of the Siksha Mitra who were not entitled in law for the purpose of their personal monetary gain, and as such, the said decision is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussions, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)