IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55919 of 2007 JEEVAN RATAN KUSHWAHA, son of Late Sarjug Prasad Mandal, Head clerk, Nagar Parishad, Sultanganj, PS Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 1.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the FIR of Sultanganj PS Case No. 99/2007 for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code. Before referring to the FIR mentioned above, I shall refer to Annexure 2 which is a complaint case filed by Subhash Poddar alleging that the money for certain receipts which were issued by the petitioner was not deposited by the petitioner in the Government treasury. The matter was sent for registration of an FIR and accordingly Sultanganj PS Case No. 151/2005 was registered on 12.9.2005. Later on Subhash Poddar has addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur praying therein that the allegations that have been made are misconceived and he does not wish to pursue the said case. It appears that no action has been taken in Sultanganj PS Case No. 151/2005. In the mean time the District Magistrate on the report of the Additional Collector, dated 28.8.2007 has directed the Executive Magistrate to file a case against the petitioner which was accordingly registered as Sultanganj PS Case No. 99/2007. In the said FIR it has been alleged that the petitioner had been wrongly appointed, that the rent receipts have falsely been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 2 would have to face double jeopardy if both the cases are allowed to proceed. Secondly it is submitted that by the impugned FIR the petitioner’s appointment has been challenged which can not be done in this manner. This court finds that since the substantial case has already been registered being Sultanganj PS Case No. 99/2007, no purpose would be served in proceeding with Sultanganj PS Case No. 151/2005. As far as the present case is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Magistrate has already enquired about the fact with respect to the allegations that receipt nos. 1801, 1802 and 1803 are false and found that in fact the money of the said receipts have been deposited in the treasury. With respect to receipt nos. 1804 to 1900, it is submitted that these receipts have been cancelled and as such the allegations in the FIR is prima facie not true. In view of the report of the Executive Magistrate the petitioner would be at liberty to bring these facts to the notice of the District Magistrate / Additional Collector so that they can make an independent enquiry. As far as quashing of the FIR is concerned, undoubtedly the Investigating Officer will examine the records and consider all the facts and after making enquiry from the authorities should take appropriate action. This court does not have the power to take investigation its own hand and as such it would be most improper to quash the FIR. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)