IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47327 of 2007 SHAMIMA KHATOON & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 3/ 30.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 893(c)/2007 corresponding to Trial No. 2631/2007 pending before Sanjay Kumar the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Buxar under Section 419 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation in the complaint is that petitioner no.1 was placed at serial no.1 of the panel prepared by the Aam Sabha for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika at its meeting on 01.04.2007. The Opposite Party no.2 was at serial no.2 of the panel. The petitioner no.1 is alleged to have given in writing that she was not interested in the appointment when the Opposite Party no.2 should have been appointed. Ignoring her position as the number-2 candidate when the petitioner no.1 declined to accept the appointment, another Aam Sabha was called on 21.06.2007 when the petitioner no.1 came to be appointed. He submits that if the petitioner no.1 was at serial no.1 of the earlier panel, there was no occasion for her to decline 2 appointment on 01.04.2007 and then again seek the same employment on 21.06.2007. It is next submitted that the allegation is that after 21.06.2007 when the Opposite Party no.2 protested about this action, accused no.1, the C.D.P.O., demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/-. In fact, in the enquiry held by the Sub-divisional Officer vide his report dated 15.06.2007, the petitioner no.1 had herself raised grievance with regard to denial of appointment to her in pursuance of her selection by the Aam Sabha of 01.04.2007. In the entirety of the allegation under Section 419 of I.P.C. which talks of cheating by impersonation had no application as there were no allegations of anyone impersonating another for the purpose of appointment or selection. Learned counsel for Opposite Party no.2 urged that who was at what position in the panel and who should have been appointed or not, are matters to be considered during trial itself. What provisions of the Penal Code may be applicable can also be appropriately considered at the time of framing of charges. Petitioner no.2 is stated to be a Ward Commissioner attending the Aam Sabha when there are no allegations against her, except for naming her in the cause title. 3 In the controversy with regard to appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika, the petitioner no.1 claims to be at Serial no.1 of the panel and is claiming appointment on that basis. Opposite Party no.2 acknowledges the status of petitioner no.1 at Serial no.1 of the panel but takes a defence that she declined appointment and then goes on to urge that she was ineligible to be considered under the guidelines. The complaint simultaneously urges that after having declined the offer of appointment barely two months later the petitioner no.1 accepted the appointment. This Court is satisfied that the complaint is nothing else but a private tussle in between petitioner no.1 and the Opposite Party no. 2 in a game of upmanship for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. The fulcrum in this entire game is the C.D.P.O. demanding an illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/- for which petitioner no.1 and Opposite Party no. 2 appear to be the two ends of the see saw. There are no allegations of demands of any illegal gratification against petitioner no. 2, much less any attribution whatsoever against her in the body of the complaint. This Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that on the face of the allegations Section 419 of the Cr. P.C. has no application as there is no 4 pleading with regard to the petitioners impersonating another for the purpose of appointment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of cognizance and the entire proceedings in Compliant Case no. 893(c)/2007 is hereby quashed but only insofar as the present two petitioners are concerned. The application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)