Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 64 (PAT)

Shashi Bhushan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-10

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. In this case notice was issued on 20.2.2006 to the opposite party. Thereafter, the case has been running on the list. On 28.11.2006 Mr. S. Azeem was asked to take instructions in the matter to file a counter-affidavit, if necessary. However, despite his best efforts, no affidavit on behalf the District Magistrate was filed. Again on 18.12.2006 further time was granted for taking instructions in this case. But no instructions have been received by the State Government. Under these circumstances, the case is being disposed of by this Court without a counter-affidavit on behalf of the State. 3. An F.I.R. was instituted on 5.8.2000 numbered as Turkaulia P. S. case no. 170 of 2000. The case was instituted on the report of the District Magistrate. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are that the petitioner has not completed the work of Yojana and the second allegation is that on advance payment made, has not been returned to the concerned M.R/M.L.A. schemes. On these two allegations investigation is said to have been conducted. However, till today no chargesheet has been filed or if it has been filed, this Court is not aware of the fact. 4. The petitioner has brought on record Annexure-2 which is the constitution of Committee by the District Magistrate who is also the informant in this case. The committee constituted by the District Magistrate is for the purpose of finding out whether the allegation in the F.I.R. are correct or not. The members of the Committee are Director, Rural Development Agency, East Champaran, Executive Engineer National Rural Development Engineering Organisation and the third member of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation. 5. The above mentioned members of the Committee have given their report which signed by them on 27.6.2005. In the said report they have appended the enquiry conducted by them with respect to the completion of the scheme. The report indicates that all the schemes were completed and thus the allegation that the schemes were not completed within time or left uncompleted does not seem to support the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. the report and the enquiry conducted by the Committee. 6. Similarly, the second allegation that money was not returned to the M.R/M.L.A. fund is also not borne out from the enquiry held by the Committee. 6. Similarly, the second allegation that money was not returned to the M.R/M.L.A. fund is also not borne out from the enquiry held by the Committee. From the report of the enquiry held it appears that there was some money which was left over, after the schemes were completed and this money has been duly returned to the Block Development Officer, Turkaulia, by this petitioner and therefore, the second allegation is also not borne out from the report of the Committee which was constituted by the District Magistrate. 7. Having regard to the fact that the letter of the District Magistrate to institute the FI.R. and the fact that District Magistrate himself has constituted a Committee to enquire into the matter, the allegation contained in the FI.R. has been negated and therefore no useful purpose would be served in continuing with this case and the F.I.R. seems to have been instituted without actually enquiring into the allegation. 8. It may also be noted that the case was filed on 5.8.2000 and even after investigation, chargesheet/final form has not been submitted in this case which also indicates that the investigating authorities are not interested in investigation and enquiring into the matter, or it may be that after the report they may have lost interest in the entire case. 9. In this case therefore, it appears that the First Information Report was filed without holding an enquiry only on the basis of some oral allegations. Since an enquiry by a duly constituted committee was held, the allegations were not borne out by the report of the committee set up by the District Magistrate. The case was instituted in the year 2000 and till today no progress has been made in the case, and as such no useful purpose would be served in allowing the case to continue. 10. In the result, the F.I.R. bearing Turkaulia P.S. case no. 170/2000 is quashed and this application is allowed.