Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 919 (GAU)

RAIHANUL MERAJ v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-06-11

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJIT BORTHAKUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Public prosecutor for State respondent No. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2, although notice was duly served on 04.02.2017. 2. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Samaguri P.S. Case No. 607/2016 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1009/2016) under Section 420 IPC. 3. The petitioner's case, in a nut-shell, is that he is the elected President of Kanumari Gaon Panchayat, under Bajiagaon Development Block, Nagaon district. On 09.11.2016, the respondent No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer in-Charge of Samaguri P.S. alleging that in the year 2012-13, one IAY house was allotted in favour of his wife, but not a single penny of the allotted fund has been received against ID No. AS 13 100 055 002 17544. After receipt of the F.I.R., the said Samaguri P.S. case has been registered and investigation is on. According to the petitioner, the allegation of misappropriation of allotted fund is not based on truth in asmuch as the wife of the respondent No. 2 and the actual beneficiary is not the same person and the actual beneficiary had already received the amount of IAY house, which is based on record. 4. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the authority prepared the permanent wait list of IAY (General) for the year 2012-13, wherein the name of the actual beneficiary namely, Manuwara Khatun, w/o Md. Jamal Uddin, resident of village-Sonaribali (ward No. 10), under Kanuwamari Gaon Panchayat bearing Family ID No. 17544 figured at serial No. 765. Mr. Ahmed clarifies that the said beneficiary is not the wife of the respondent No. 2 and accordingly the Block Development Officer, Bajiagaon Development Block released an amount of Rs. 16,000/-, through Samaguri P.O. A/c No. 362480 as first instalment to the actual beneficiary and thereafter, released the second instalment of Rs. 21,000/- and the third instalment of Rs. 11,500/- as per IAY Guidelines, 2013. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that after receipt of the said amount of Rs. 48,500/-, the actual beneficiary has constructed her house and accordingly, acknowledged receipt by swearing an affidavit, dated 13.11.2016 and the B.D.O. concerned issued a certificate, dated 15.11.2016. 5. Per contra, Mr. 11,500/- as per IAY Guidelines, 2013. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submits that after receipt of the said amount of Rs. 48,500/-, the actual beneficiary has constructed her house and accordingly, acknowledged receipt by swearing an affidavit, dated 13.11.2016 and the B.D.O. concerned issued a certificate, dated 15.11.2016. 5. Per contra, Mr. T.N. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that on the face of the F.I.R. a prima facie case of misappropriation of govt. fund meant for IAY scheme is disclosed, which is a cognisable offence and truthfulness of the petitioner's contentions will come to light only after completion of investigation. Mr. Mishra further submits that at the present stage of investigation, it may not be appropriate to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the F.I.R. 6. It is pertinent to be mentioned that in R.P. Kapur v. State, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , the Supreme Court summarised some categories of cases, where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings, and these included a situation, where the allegations in the F.I.R. or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. The said view was reiterated in another leading case of State v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 SCC Supp (1) 335. It is well settled that the power to quash an F.I.R or investigation is meant to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection when there is reason to believe that the process of law is being misused to harass a person. 7. On perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., it transpires that the informant/respondent No. 2 raised allegation of misappropriation of fund allotted under IAY scheme in favour of his wife, during the financial year 2012-13, which the petitioner denied contending that the amount was already released to the actual beneficiary, bearing the same. This contention if at all has substance, the matter warrants an in depth investigation, which is the province of investigating agency, not of this Court, as disputed fact cannot be decided effectively in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 8. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.