Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 648 (PAT)

Jitendra Nath v. State of Bihar

2022-07-28

PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

body2022
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J.:–This application has been filed for quashing of order dated 01.08.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Parihar PS Case No. 23 of 2016 corresponding to Trial No. 3616 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the court below has been pleased to take cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that this petitioner along with other four named accused persons obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated educational certificates. On the basis of aforesaid written application Parihar PS Case No. 23 of 2016 for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance for offence under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner and others. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was appointed after following due courses of law and joined his duty on 21.12.2006. He was working as an Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Daraharwa falling within Parihar Block of District Sitamarhi. It is next contended that petitioner was regular student of B.Ed course. Petitioner was appointed as Block Teacher having qualification of MA, B.Ed Teacher. He was regular student of B.Ed. Course in academic sessions of 1994-95 of S. Wakil Ahmad Teacher’s Training College, Darbhanga. The examination of students of Sessions 1994-95 was held in 1998 and result was published in the year 1998. The aforesaid training college was affiliated to L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. Petitioner was student of the training course. However, in the year 2000 the Examination Controller of L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga by Memo No. X(C) 1868-78/2000 cancelled the admission, examination, result, mark-sheet and certificate of students of S. Wakil Ahmad Teacher’s Training (B.Ed.) College, Murgiachak, Bandh Road, Laherisarai, Lalbagh, Darbhanga on the ground that affiliation granted to the college was cancelled with retrospective effect. Subsequently, in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 13108 of 2016, the Registrar, L. N. Mithila University by Memo No. 372/18 dated 06.01.2018 withdrew the notification issued vide Memo No. XC/1667- 1867/2000 dated 29.02.2000 by which examination result, mark-sheet and provisional certificates of B.Ed. Subsequently, in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 13108 of 2016, the Registrar, L. N. Mithila University by Memo No. 372/18 dated 06.01.2018 withdrew the notification issued vide Memo No. XC/1667- 1867/2000 dated 29.02.2000 by which examination result, mark-sheet and provisional certificates of B.Ed. for the sessions 1985-86 to 1996-97 of S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, was withdrawn and results of aforesaid academic sessions were declared valid. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that FIR was lodged solely on the ground that the qualification of B.Ed. of the petitioner was obtained from the college which was non-affiliated college. Now, in view of the subsequent withdrawal order passed by Registrar LN Mithila University vide Annexure- 3 to the petition, there is no material on record to show that the certificates submitted by the petitioner was forged and fabricated. Hence, continuation of criminal proceeding is gross abuse of the process of law and it is not in the interest of justice. There is no chance of conviction and continuance of the proceeding is futile and wastage of Hon’ble Court’s time. 5. However, counsel for the State opposed the submissions made on behalf of petitioner and submitted that on the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau the present FIR has been lodged and after thorough investigation chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner and others under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the stage of taking cognizance the court below is not required to look into the merit and demerit of the case. There is sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner for taking cognizance against the petitioner. 6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials and the impugned order on record, it is settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance court below is required to take into consideration the averments made in the complaint/FIR or evidence collected during course of investigation or led in support thereof with limited purpose to find out as to whether there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. In this case cognizance has been taking against accused persons by the court below on 01.08.2017 and petitioner is seeking the quashing of order of cognizance on the strength of a document which has come into existence after the order of cognizance. In this case cognizance has been taking against accused persons by the court below on 01.08.2017 and petitioner is seeking the quashing of order of cognizance on the strength of a document which has come into existence after the order of cognizance. The document in question which is being relied upon by the petitioner was not even in existence at the time of cognizance. It is pertinent to note here that by the subsequent order of withdrawal Annexure-3 to the petition, the Registrar University has only granted affiliation and recognition to the college in question, but that does not mean that even the certificates and mark-sheets submitted by the petitioner has also been declared to be valid and genuine. Genuineness of educational certificates can only be decided in trial after evidences are adduced on behalf of parties. It is the genuineness of documents submitted by petitioner at the time of appointment which is subject matter of the present case and not the affiliation or recognition of college. Moreover, the grounds taken by the petitioner to assail the order of cognizance fall in the realm of defence which cannot be seen at this stage. 7. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances and discussions made above, this court does not find error in the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this quashing application stands dismissed.