Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 362 (JHR)

Krishna Mohan Prasad v. Union of India

2006-04-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
Order Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the First Information Report dated 25.10.2000 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477 A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(ii) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act consequent thereto Special Case No. 5/2000 is pending before the Special Judge, CBI (AHD), Ranchi. 3. At the outset, it is stated that now the Special Case No. 5/2000 is fixed for judgment on the next Saturday, i.e. 15.4.2006 after conclusion of the trial as submitted by Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in course of argument. 4. The petitioner has faced the trial in the aforesaid special case being one of the accused, who was charged for the aforesaid offences of entering into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy cheated the Government to a tune of Rs. One crore by showing bogus supplies against fake bills submitted by private suppliers and further an amount of Rs. 75,21,800/- which was allotted to the office of the Project Officer, Frozen Semen Bank, Hotwar, Ranchi was misappropriated by manipulating documents. 5. It is relevant to state that even at the stage when the prosecution of the aforesaid case was closed, the petitioner by filing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. made a prayer before the trial court to add some of the PWs as accused to face trial in the said case, which was rejected by the trial court. The said order of rejection of the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner, was challenged by him before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 175/2005, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 18.1.2006 by directing the trial court to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from the date of the order. 6. Now at this stage when the case is fixed for judgment before the trial court, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report on the ground that the Central Bureau" of Investigation had no authority to institute the F.I.R. in question in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Anr., dated 19.3.1996 in Civil Appeal No. 5177 of 1996. 7. After going through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar (supra) (Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application No. 634/2006), I find that the prayer of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Raising such a plea by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. at such a stage of the trial when it is fixed for judgment that also after taking part in the full dressed trial before the Special Judge, this attempt of the petitioner can certainly be termed as a desperate attempt to protract the criminal proceedings. 8. In this view of the matter, this court refuses to entertain such an application. 7. Accordingly, having found no merit in this writ application, the same is hereby dismissed.