Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 299 (JHR)

Krishna Murari v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-31

JAYA ROY

body2011
Order Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance. 2. The petitioner has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding .in connection with Ranchi Sadar Vigilance P,S. Case No. 61 of 2010 dated 30.11 .2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 78 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Sections 409, 420, 406, 504, 506, 120B, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1 )(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Khan, the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the prosecution case as it appears i.e. written report dated 26.11.2010 alleging therein that pursuant to the direction of the Vigilance Commissioner as contained in letter no. 1027 dated ' 17 .8.10, the following facts have come to light against Lalan Kumar Choudhary and others for misappropriation of the Government Money. It has been alleged that in the year 1994 Zila: Parishad, Hazaribagh was made available through the authority level an amount of. RS.178 Lakhs for the schemes for road construction. The said work was got executed through the Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and an enquiry was conducted by the then Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and according to the said enquiry report the Government after analyzing found that an amount of Rs. 23,44,848.00 (given for the purpose of Road Construction) has been misappropriated by the then Executive Engineer-cum-District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Assistant Engineer, Building Division, Hazaribagh, Assistant Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and the petitioner being the Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and thereafter in the light of the direction given by the Special Secretary the Department Rural Development Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 3.7.96 and 30.7.96 for the• aforesaid misappropriation, a case has been lodged against the accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 406, 504, 506, 120B, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1 )(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. i.e. Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 dated 3.8.96. 4. i.e. Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 dated 3.8.96. 4. The learned counsel of the petitioner has further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid written report dated 26.11.2010 another case being Ra,nchi Sadar Vigilance P.S. Case No. 61 of 2010 dated 30.11.2010 correspondent to Special Case No. 78 of 2010 has been registered against the petitioner alongwith other accused persons. It is contended that for the same misappropriation for which Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 has been registered, the present vigilance case has also been registered against the petitioner in 2010. Therefore, for the same offence two cases cannot be registered against the petitioner and the present case is fit to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited two decisions of the Jharkhand High Court in support of his aforesaid contentions which are as follows:- (i) The order dated 23.6.2010 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 782 of 2005 Yogendra Prasad vs. The State of Jharkhand. (ii) The order dated 23.11.2010 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 226 of 2008 Chandan Mishra VS. The State of Jharkhand. 6. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, appearing for the Vigilance, submits that the present case has been registered on 30.11.2010 for the misappropriation committed from the year 1996 to till date i.e. November 2010. He has further submitted the earlier case i.e. Sadar P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 dated 3.8.96 is for misappropriation for the amount of Rs. 178 Lakhs for the scheme for the road construction which was given to Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh in the year 1994. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present case Vigilance P.S. Case No. 61 of 2010 dated 30.11.2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 78 of 2010 has been registered for the same offence for which the P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 has been lodged earlier. It is further submitted that the details of the misappropriation and the number of the cases have been mentioned in the letter NO.1027 dated 17.8.2010 given by the Vigilance Commissioner which has been made as a part of the contents of the F.I.R. of the present case. In the present case, the amount misappropriation is nearly a sum of Rs. 25 Crores (Twenty five crores). It is further submitted that the petitioner was Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and retired from the said post on 31.1.1997. In the present case, the amount misappropriation is nearly a sum of Rs. 25 Crores (Twenty five crores). It is further submitted that the petitioner was Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and retired from the said post on 31.1.1997. It has come• in the F.I.R. that the petitioner is also one of the person involved in this case and there is a direct allegation against him in the F.I.R. 7 From the record, I find that the Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 is only regarding misappropriation of the amount allotted in 1994 for the purpose of Road Construction but the present case is for misappropriation of the various schemes from 1996 to November 2010 amounting nearly Rs. 25 crores. Furthermore, there is a direct allegation against the petitioner in the contents of the F.1. R. and it is also submitted by the counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner was Junior Engineer in the Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh and retired from the said post in 1997. Thus, he was very much present during the period of misappropriation. 8. The decisions which have been given by the counsel of the petitioner are not applicable in the present case as the present case has not been instituted against the petitioner for the same offence for which earlier Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 256 of 1996 dated 3.8.96 was registered. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case d Central Bureau of Investigation vs Laxmi Dhaul reported in (2007) 14 S.C.C. 497- "3. Having heard the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to examine the matter and quash the police investigation, which was pending against the respondent Laxmi Dhaul." 9. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, I do not find any reason for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of the instant case against the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is, hereby, rejected.