Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 316 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2021-03-18

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2021
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This Cr. M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the First Information Report and the entire proceeding thereof in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 09 of 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the prayer portion it has not been categorically mentioned but it has been mentioned in Para-4 of the instant petition that the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017 is the case assigned to the case after being transferred to Chaibasa and the Vigilance Case No. 09 of 2015 relates to the case while the same was in Ranchi before transfer of the case to Chaibasa. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner who is one of the accused of the said case, is that some irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the petitioner in the matter of implementation of MNREGA Scheme No. 274/2008-09 pertaining to construction of P.W.D. Main Road Bhaldungri to Sidua, Rajnawa (2 KM Grade I Part I). It is next submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted in Zila Parishad by way of additional charge and no advance amount had been given to the petitioner as alleged rather the same was given to the Assistant Engineer- Shashi Prakash and the petitioner was simply engaged by the Executive Engineer along with the co-accused Assistant Engineer to carry out day-to-day work under his instructions but no entrustment was made to him rather the entrustment was made to the Assistant Engineer and because of three rainy seasons, some damage was caused to Kachha Morum Road. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and Government Servant, presently posted and working as Assistant Engineer at Minor Irrigation Division No. III, Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur and the reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence. Hence, it is submitted that the said F.I.R. be quashed and set aside. 5. Ms. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and Government Servant, presently posted and working as Assistant Engineer at Minor Irrigation Division No. III, Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur and the reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence. Hence, it is submitted that the said F.I.R. be quashed and set aside. 5. Ms. Priya Shrestha learned Special P.P. appearing for the A.C.B. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner being the Junior Engineer, was responsible for several irregularities committed in project under the MNREGA Scheme and being a public servant, the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is next submitted that since the offence involves criminal conspiracy, so, even if there is no entrustment of money particularly to the petitioner but admittedly to the co-accused- Assistant Engineer in criminal conspiracy with whom the petitioner has committed the offence, hence, still the charges for the said offences can be established against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is then submitted that the defence of the petitioner cannot be the grounds for quashing the F.I.R., at the most, the defence of the petitioner can be raised by the petitioner during the trial of the case but the same cannot be appreciated at the threshold for quashing the F.I.R. without any evidence in the record and merely on a statement made on oath regarding the defence of the petitioner, the same cannot be treated as gospel truth. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, by way of illustration enunciated the list of cases where an F.I.R fire can be quashed, in paragraph 102 which reads as under: 102. xxx xxx xxx (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. xxx xxx xxx (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 uncontroverted 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, no 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 ground for proceeding 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 proceeding 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 mala-fide 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. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide 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. Considering the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that since there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed criminal breach of trust in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused public servant as well as having committed the offence of cheating as also being a public servant, he has committed criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating and converting to his own use the property entrusted to him and by corrupt and illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage without public interest in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the First Information Report be quashed at the threshold as this case does not fall in any of the categories for quashing FIR as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra). 7. Accordingly, this petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.