CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13360 OF 2000 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.. ------- SHAH WASIF AHMAD son of late Shah Ahmad Hussain, At present posted as general Manager-cum-Chief Engineer Central Bihar Area Electricity Board, 8 Serptentine Road, Patna-1. ……..Petitioner Versus 1.KHAIROON NISHA wife of late Alimuddin, Shilled “Khalasi”, village & P.O.-Chaap, P.S.-Dehri, Dist.-Rhotas 2.The State of Bihar ……….. ……..Opp.Party. -------- For the petitioner: Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh For the State: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.742-C of 1997 of the order dated 9.9.1997 whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, after filing the complaint petition, transferred the same for enquiry and its disposal to the court of Shri P.K.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sasaram under section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, also order dated 10.3.1998 whereby the learned transferee court i.e. Sri P.K.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sasaram after perusing the complaint petition and statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation as well as documents produced, was satisfied that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons for the offences under sections 420, 120B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and directed 2 for securing attendance of the accused persons. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 18.2.2000 passed in Cr.Revision No.321 of 1998 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. 2. Aggrieved with the order dated 10.3.1998, the petitioner, who was posted as Superintending Engineer, Rohtas Circle, Sasaram, preferred revision vide Cr.Revision No.321 of 1998. The revisional court also approved the order of cognizance and rejected the revision petition by its order dated 18.2.2000. 3. The petitioner aggrieved with the order of cognizance as well as order dated 18.2.2000 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected, approached this court by filing the present petition. 4. Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as revisional order, submits that the learned Magistrate, while passing order of cognizance and issuing notice, has committed grave error by over looking the fact that the complaint petition was filed only against post and not against any named accused person. He submits that it is true that on the date of order of cognizance the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer at Sasaram but the fact remains that he joined the post at Sasaram after filing of the complaint petition. It was submitted that the complaint petition was filed on 9.9.1997 and the petitioner joined as Superintendent Engineer at Sasaram on 15.12.1997. It was submitted that in the complaint petition the date of occurrence was mentioned as from 3 2.2.1996 to 29.2.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed annexure-13 to the petition, which is joining report, to show that the petitioner took charge at Sasaram after filing of the complaint case. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the Superintending Engineer, Rohtas Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board had mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.45,953/- which was sanctioned by the headquarters of the Electricity Board for its disbursement as provident fund amount of late husband of the complainant. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that husband of the complainant was a Class-IV employee in the Electricity Board and was posted at Sasaram and he died while he was on duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that even from the record it is evident that provident fund amount was subsequently, when it was received from the headquarters, was handed over to the complainant. Moreover, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, whatever offence was committed, was committed by the predecessor of the petitioner and the petitioner was not directly or indirectly involved in the present offence. He further argued that the revisional court in a mechanical manner has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of both the orders of cognizance as well as revisional order. 5. Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I 4 Patna High Court The 9th July, 2010 Md.S./NAFR have also examined the materials available on the record. The complainant had arrayed the Superintending Engineer, Rohtas Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sasaram as one of the accused. In the complaint petition name of the Superintendent Engineer has not been mentioned. The complaint petition further shows that husband of the complainant died on 6.4.1994. Though there is statement in the complaint petition that provident fund amount was sanctioned by the headquarter but there is nothing on the record to show that, as claimed by the complainant, any amount of provident fund was actually sanctioned on the date or not. Moreover, the petitioner joined the post of Superintending Engineer at Sasaram after filing of the complaint petition. As such, it cannot be said that he was directly or indirectly involved in the matter. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the prosecution of this petitioner was not warranted. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the order of cognizance dated 10.3.1998 passed by Sri P.K.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sasaram as well as revisional order dated 18.2.2000 passed in Cr.Revision No.321 of 1998 by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram are hereby set aside. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) 5