Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 988 (PAT)

Jairam Sharma v. State of Bihar

2012-07-18

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2012
ORDER Petitioner has sought for quashing of Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No.64/2011 registered under Section 353, 166 of the IPC. 2. Ram Lakhan Mahto, Junior Engineer filed written report as per direction of the District Magistrate, Aurangabad bearing an allegation that petitioner Jairam Sharma, Junior Engineer had not joined at Base Godown, Aurangabad by 9.2.2012 and by such action he had prevented/obstructed function of the Government. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the allegation whatever been incorporated in the written report does not attract any penal provision. Further submitted that actually petitioner was ill and on account thereof he was not able to join at Base Godown, Aurangabad and for that he had already intimated the authority concerned apart from asking for medical leave. So institution of the case is nothing but misuse of power. 4. At the other hand the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that by keeping himself absent petitioner had prevented smooth functioning of the official duty so directed and as such institution of the case is justifiable. 5. The first infirmity coming out from Annexure-1 (F.I.R.) happens to be that the date of occurrence has been shown as 9.2.2012, the written report was filed on 11.2.2012 but the FIR contains the number 64/11. How a number of a case that too of previous year has been acknowledged for coming year is a matter of concern and further, it has not been properly explained by the State. 6. The second theme that none of the sections where under case has been registered is coming out from the narration of the written report because of the fact that under Section 353 of the IPC, force has to be used /or assault has to be made by the accused by which a public servant has been deterred during discharge of his official function and in likewise manner Section 166 speaks regarding intending to cause injury to any person by making disobedience of law. From narration of the written report it is evident that there happens to be disobedience of administrative order by a government servant by not joining by specified date, and as such there happens to be absence of any of the ingredient for application of Section 353 or 166 of the IPC. and for that utmost departmental proceeding is required. 7. From narration of the written report it is evident that there happens to be disobedience of administrative order by a government servant by not joining by specified date, and as such there happens to be absence of any of the ingredient for application of Section 353 or 166 of the IPC. and for that utmost departmental proceeding is required. 7. In a leading decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , State of Hariyana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. the following criteria has been identified whereupon the prosecution is liable to be quashed: – “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroveretd allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. Thus, taking into account the allegation as held on its face no offence is made out, hence the criteria so identified as detailed above has an impression in its true sense. Consequent thereupon FIR of Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. No.64/11 is hereby quashed. Thus, petition is allowed.