Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 7 (JHR)

Niranjan Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-02

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No. 672 of 2007 (arising out of Bharno P.S. Case No. 94 of 2007) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that F.I.R was lodged by the B.D.O, Bharno, Gumla alleging therein that one Budhdeo Oraon, Panchayat Sevak in connivance with Sanjay Prasad got three cheques issued in the name of three persons, namely, Lagan Nayak, Gahnu Lohra and Parasram Lohra for making payment to them under the scheme of Indira Awaas Yojana and got it en-cashed but those three persons had already died. 4. On the said allegation Bharno P.S. Case No. 94 of 2007 was registered under Sections 409, 419 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the said Budhdeo Oraon as well as Sanjay Prasad. The matter was taken up for investigation. 5. During investigation, the police did find complicity of this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Clerk in the office of B.D.O, Bharno, Gumla as those cheques have been filled up by this petitioner. 6. On such accusation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner as well as other named accused persons, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken, vide order dated 18.2.2009 which has been challenged before this Court. 7. Mr. 6. On such accusation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner as well as other named accused persons, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken, vide order dated 18.2.2009 which has been challenged before this Court. 7. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. but the charge-sheet has been submitted against him for the reason that the petitioner filed up those cheques issued in the name of dead persons but those cheques, as per the statement made by the witness in course of investigation, had been filled up by the petitioner at the instance of the B.D.O and that this petitioner was never supposed to deal with the matter relating to issuance of the cheques but it happens so that the Nazir, who was supposed to fill up the cheques, had gone on leave and the B.D.O asked this petitioner to fill up those cheques and the petitioner obeying the order of the B.D.O, filled up those cheques without knowing that the cheques are filled up ill the name of dead persons. 8. In this regard, it was further submitted that nothing has come during investigation to show that this petitioner had knowledge that the persons against whom the cheques are being issued were the dead persons and moreover, nothing has come during investigation that the cheques were en-cashed by this petitioner, rather what has come during investigation is that those cheques were en-cashed by the accused persons, Budhdeo Oraon as well as Sanjay Prasad and under that circumstances, it can easily be said that the petitioner has become the victim of the circumstance as there was no act of conspiracy on the part of this petitioner and therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner. 9. As against this, learned counsel appealing for the State submits that it is the petitioner, who had filled up those three cheques in the name of dead persons and thereby it can never be said that this petitioner had no role to play in the alleged offence and thereby the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 10. 9. As against this, learned counsel appealing for the State submits that it is the petitioner, who had filled up those three cheques in the name of dead persons and thereby it can never be said that this petitioner had no role to play in the alleged offence and thereby the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 10. Having heard learned counsel appealing for the parties, it does appear that the case was lodged against two named accused persons, Budhdeo Oraon, the then Panchayat Sewak as well as Sanjay Prasad, who is said to be the middle man on the allegation that those two persons in connivance with each other got three cheques issued in the name of dead persons. During investigation, it got transpired that those two persons after encashing cheques got the money misappropriated whereas this petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Clerk in the office of B.D.O, Bharno, Gumla, has been made accused as those three cheques had been filled up by this petitioner. Those cheques, as per the statement made by the witnesses during investigation, had been filled up by the petitioner under the written order of the B.D.O. On that day, the petitioner was In-charge of Nazir, who was supposed to deal with the matter. Nothing seems to have come during investigation that this petitioner after filling up the cheques in the name of dead person got it en-cashed or got the share of the booty, rather it is the specific case of the prosecution that those three cheques were en-cashed by Budhdeo Oraon as well as Sanjay Prasad. In that event, no case is made out either under Sections 409, 419 or under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code so far this petitioner is concerned. 11. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.