IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8769 of 2008 1. Vidya Devi W/o Kaushalendra Pratap Narain Singh 2. Kaushalendra Pratap Narain Singh S/o Late Thakur Jugal Kishore Narain Singh 3. Abinash Kumar Singh S/o Kaushalendra Pratap Narain Singh - All residents of village Poiwan, PS Aurangabad Mufasil,Distt. Aurangabad 4. Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Kamlesh Kumar Singh 5. Jaishree Singh D/o Virendra Kumar Singh Both residents of Village Anchha, PS Daudnagar, District Aurangabad …………… Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. The Block Development Officer, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad …………….. Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 10- 21/12/2011 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 4.3.2010, counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed. The same is taken on record. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of Aurangabad Mufassil P.S. Case No. 3 of 2008 dated 8.1.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Aurangabad. Petitioner no. 1 who is the then Mukhiya, has been accused in the capacity of Mukhiya, petitioner no. 2 is the husband of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 3 is 2 the son of petitioners no. 1 and 2. Petitioners no. 4 and 5 are Panchayat Teachers in the concerned Panchayat. 3. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the present case are as under. 4. The matter relates to appointment of Panchayat teachers. It is alleged that petitioner no. 1 who was Mukhiya at the relevant time, in conspiracy with others, had committed irregularity in course of such appointment. The specific allegation is that pursuant to advertisement, applications had been received and the date of counselling was fixed after which notices were required to be sent and accordingly notices are alleged to have been sent under certificate of posting, but it is alleged that upon complaint by 53 persons about non- receipt of such intimation, an enquiry was held in which it was opined that certain persons alleging non-receipt of intimation clearly indicated that irregularity had been committed in such dispatch and sending of intimation. It is further alleged that close relatives of the persons involved in taking the decision with regard to appointment had been given such employment which would have been possible only by excluding others who 3 were in better position with regard to merit and eligibility. Such opinion was initially given by the Sub Divisional Officer to the District Magistrate. But in view of the law that the S.D.O. has no power to interfere in the matter, the report was called for from the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad, who has given a finding that notices were sent and persons did take part in counselling and pursuant thereto appointments were made. It thus held that no irregularity or misconduct can be attributed on the part of the persons involved in such procedure for making appointment. This report was again commented upon by the S.D.O. who has termed the said report to be infirm and not based on proper consideration and a recommendation has been made to the District Magistrate for referring the matter to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. However, the D.M. appears to have recommended for lodging of F.I.R. which resulted in Aurangabad Mufassil P.S. Case No. 3 of 2008 dated 8.1.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without verification of the fact as to whether notices were sent under certificate of posting, no criminal 4 prosecution could have been lodged. It is further submitted that law permits of sending of notices under certificate of posting and when there is valid stamp and seal showing such dispatch, without there being any concrete finding or evidence that the same was false and fabricated, such charge could not have been levelled against the petitioners much less being used as the basis for initiating criminal proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to such action the District Magistrate had also ordered for disengaging the persons appointed which was also done. The same was challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 14605 of 2007 in which by order dated 29.1.2009, the termination order was set aside on the ground that the concerned persons were not given opportunity of hearing or notice. Pursuant to this, upon notice being served to the petitioners and their replying, again order of termination was passed which also came before this Court in CWJC No. 6058 of 2009 in which by order dated 14.5.2009 this Court observed that since the matter now fell in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, the same be decided at the earliest without unnecessary delay. The Appellate 5 Authority thereafter by order dated 26.11.2009, upheld the appointment of the petitioners pursuant to which they started discharging their duties as Panchayat Teachers. When payment was stopped, they were forced to move before this Court for the third time in CWJC No. 7347 of 2010 in which by order dated 6.7.2010 this Court held that as long as there was an order of the Appellate Authority, which is an independent statutory authority, its order has got the force of law, and the District Superintendent of Education as well as the Sub Divisional Officer were directed to implement the order of the Tribunal and not to interfere with the right of the petitioners except under due authority of law. Learned counsel submits that after than neither the authority has passed any adverse order nor is there any other order against the said teachers continuing on their posts. Learned counsel sums up his arguments by submitting that in view of all this, the charge itself against the petitioners became untenable and totally based on surmises and thus it is a fit case which comes within the parameters of such cases where on plain reading of F.I.R. no criminal culpability can be fastened on the petitioners 6 and this Court can interfere at this very stage. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the application and submits that investigation is going on and that the prosecution has been launched bonafide as the petitioners have committed illegality which also fastened criminal liability on them. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is conscious of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:- “482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” (Emphasis added) From a plain reading of the same, it is obvious that the intention of the Legislature was that the High Court should not be fettered in its inherent power to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7 8. In view of the submissions made and from the materials on record as well as the documents annexed thereto it is apparent that the petitioners have been sought to be criminally prosecuted only on account of the presumption that proper notices were not sent to the concerned persons in the matter of intimating them with regard to the date and place of counselling for employment as Panchayat Teachers. It is also admitted in the very report itself that the notices were sent under certificate of posting and this factum has not been challenged or otherwise held to be untrue or false. Thus the presumption that the same was not done has absolutely no legal or factual basis to stand. Besides, there does not appear to be any other angle or colour in the entire F.I.R. which can otherwise fasten criminal liability on the petitioners. 9. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal position that the Court is empowered to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, the criminal prosecution against the petitioners are not fit to be proceeded with. Accordingly, prosecution launched pursuant to 8 Aurangabad Mufassil P.S. Case No. 3 of 2008, dated 8.1.2008 against the petitioners, stands quashed. 10. This application stands allowed. mrl ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)