Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 194 (PAT)

Sadanand Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-02-01

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. - Heard Shri Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel who was assisted by Shri Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arun Kumar Pandey learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of criminal proceeding which has been initiated after lodging of the FIR. The petitioner, in some and substance has prayed for quashing of FIR registered on an allegation of mis-appropriation of Government fund to the tune of Rs. 14,15,411.50/-. On the basis of written report of Divisional Forest Officer, Saharsa an FIR vide Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 10 of 2011 was registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and thereafter the present petition was filed for quashing of the same. Of course in the prayer portion the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal proceeding, but fact remins that investigation is still continuing and as such it cannot be said that any criminal proceeding is pending against him. 3. Shri Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner basing on averments made in the petition as well as on the basis of averment made in the supplementary affidavit has argued that the petitioner has been made accused as per instance of Conservator of Forest namely, Shri U.S. Jha. It was submitted that earlier petitioner had filed complaint against Shri U.S. Jha. while he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer and only when Shri U.S. Jha became Conservator of Forest he got number of criminal cases instituted against this petitioner and as such primarily the present case is liable to be set aside on the ground of malice. It has also been argued that the petitioner was put under suspension also and subsequently petitioner filed representation before the National Human Rights Commission and by intervention of the commission his suspension order was revoked. Shri Choudhary has argued that on the basis of materials on record, no case is made out. 4. Alternatively, it has been argued that this Court may direct the Investigating Officer to give full opportunity to the petitioner for raising his defence and bringing on record all the relevant documents. 5. I have perused the FIR. Shri Choudhary has argued that on the basis of materials on record, no case is made out. 4. Alternatively, it has been argued that this Court may direct the Investigating Officer to give full opportunity to the petitioner for raising his defence and bringing on record all the relevant documents. 5. I have perused the FIR. After going through the FIR, the Court is satisfied that cognizable offence is made out and as such it would be difficult for this Court to interfere with the FIR. The ground of malice which has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be not sufficient for the Court for interference with initial stage of investigation of a criminal case. Time without number, it has been reiterated right from the case reported In AIR 1945 PC 18, King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, which has repeatedly been followed also in AIR 1980 SC 326 , State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldana, it has been held that investigation in a criminal case is complete domain of police under the supervision of the State authority and interference with the investigation by the Courts has been deprecated. Only on the ground of malicious prosecution, FIR or investigation cannot be interfered with. The Hon ble Apex Court in a case reported in 1991 (2) PLJR SC 11, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, while reiterating the view of J.A.C. Saldana's case (supra) has held that if a criminal case is instituted malafide of informant would be of secondary importance. Meaning thereby that on the ground of malafide an FIR or investigation cannot be interfered with if the case primarily discloses commission of cognizable offence and as such in view of settled law, it would be difficult for this Court to pass any favourably order. 6. Learned senior counsel has heavily relied on an order passed by this Court in Cri Misc. No. 22562 of 2010 disposed of on 10.3.2011 along with other petitions which was preferred by this petitioner. In the said case, this Court had directed the Investigating Officer through Superintendent of Police, Madhepura to consider the case of the petitioner and conclude the investigation within a reasonable time. It goes without saying that if an FIR is lodged for commission of cognizable offence and police investigates the case, the Investigating Agency will investigate the case fairly and without being influenced by any authority. It goes without saying that if an FIR is lodged for commission of cognizable offence and police investigates the case, the Investigating Agency will investigate the case fairly and without being influenced by any authority. 7. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that no direction is required to be passed by this Court by way of issuing direction to the Investigating Officer. Such direction would amount to interference with the investigation of a case and as such with respect, I am not in a position to issue any direction in the manner in which this Court has passed order vide Annexure-7 to the present petition. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Court is of the opinion that there is no ground for interference with the FIR and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The Court expects that without being prejudiced by rejection of this petition the Investigating Officer will conduct investigation fairly. Petition dismissed.