IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14016 of 2007 1. MOTI LAL MAHTO S/O LATE JHARILAL MAHTO R/O OF VILLAGE SHIVNATHPUR, PS- BIBHUTIPUR, DIST-SAMSTIPUR 2. SMT. ANITA KUMARI W/O OF DHARMENDRA KUMAR PANDEY R/O VILLAGE HARIPUR REWARI PS- ANGARPHAT, DIST- SAMASTIPUR- -----------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DURGA PD. SINGH S/O NOW KNOWN PRAKHAN PRAMUKH UJIARPUR PS- ANGARGHAT DIST- SAMASTIPUR----OPP.PARTIES ----------- 7. 2 .7.2009 Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalsingsarai in connection with T. R. No. 1126 of 2007 which arose out of Angarghat P.S. Case No. 21 of 2004. Cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 474/34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Durga Prasad Singh, Pramukh of Ujiarpur Block gave a written statement to the Officer Incharge of Angarghat Police Station which is letter no. 30 dated 6.7.2004 stating therein that he has been informed by Mukhiya of Chaita Gram Panchayat that some interpolation has been done by the two petitioners in marking the attendance register at the Additional Primary Health Centre, Chaita. The above discrepancy came to light on inspection made by Mukhiya and he informed the above wrong doing of the petitioners to the Pramukh. It is also alleged that on 11th June, 2004 the informant had himself inspected the Health Centre and he found the three persons absent from duty without permission and endorsement was made in the attendance register. They were fraudulently trying to tamper with the same and obtained payment of salary for that period. On the above - 2 - complaint the case in question, namely, Angarghat P.S. Case No. 21 of 2004 came to be registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code as recorded in the earlier part of the order. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that it is a case of false and malicious prosecution due to motivated reason. Petitioner no.1 is working in the Health Centre as a dresser and petitioner no.2 is working on the post of A.N.M. The centre is under the control of one Doctor Vijay Kumar Sinha who is posted at Ujiarpur. Employees posted at the Health Centre had to go to Ujiarpur for official work after obtaining permission from Mukhiya or the Up-Mukhiya for various work. Both the petitioners on the so called date of inspection or the allegation had gone for official work. On the allegation made even a departmental enquiry was held and the petitioners had been exonerated of the charge as no wrong doing was found. Not only this it is also a fact that wife of the local Mukhiya, namely, Subhkala Devi is also an employee holding the post of A.N.M. working at the said Health Centre. Since the said Subhkala Devi has not shouldered her responsibility, complaints were made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate in this regard and this, according to the petitioners, caused annoyance to the Mukhiya who in connivance of the Pramukh managed to file the present case by himself interpolating in the attendance register by using whitener and eraser. The matter was duly investigated by the police and - 3 - no one came forward to support the allegation but under the local pressure the police mechanically filed chargesheet and cognizance came to be taken. It is also urged that even on the reading of the allegation the basic ingredients of most of the sections alleged in the case are not made out. The informant Durga Prasad Singh was made opposite party no.2 to the case and notice came to be issued to him. He has appeared and filed counter affidavit stating that no case for interference is made out as the police has rightly submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken on the same. The Court has however gone through the materials and the annexures which have been brought on record. All does not seem to be well in the manner in which the present case has been filed by Pramukh. There is material to show that there is instigation on behalf of the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat against whose wife certain complaints had been made to the senior authority by the petitioners as well as reflected from annexures brought on record. It is also a fact that the petitioners were show caused, explanations were asked for with regard to the same set of charge and they came to be exonerated by the higher authority. In this background allowing the prosecution against the two petitioners is merely to satisfy the ego of Mukhiya or the Pramukh and its continuation would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioners have made out a case for interference and the - 4 - Court comes to be a considered opinion that it is a motivated piece of complaint and prosecution, only to satisfy the vanity of the Pramukh and Mukhiya concerned. In view of the above the order taking cognizance dated 27.10.2005 passed in T.R. No. 1126 of 2007 arising out of Angarghat P.S. Case No. 21 of 2004 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalsingsarai is hereby quashed. This application is accordingly is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)