Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 673 (PAT)

Mukesh Kumar S/o Gorelal Singh v. State of Bihar

2025-07-09

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The present petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR bearing Kashichak P.S. Case No. 124 of 2019 dated 09.08.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending before the court of learned ACJM-VI, Nawada. 3. As per the case of prosecution, Rewra Jagdishpur, PACS has purchased 1612 quintal paddy for the year 2018-19 after selection from Task Force Nawada. After that the PACS only supplied 270 QH CMR (01 Lot) to SFC, Nawada from 1080 QH CMR. The rest CMR of 810 QH (03 Lot) was not supplied by the said PACS after several direction and accordingly the PACS defalcated the paddy of 1209 QH which total amount is Rs. 21,45,975/- (1209 QH X 1775 Rs./QH). The informant further alleged that in the light of letter No. 756 dated 02.08.2019 issued by District Cooperative Officer, Nawada, FIR was lodged against PACS Chairman, Mukesh Kumar and present PACS Executive Member, Ayodhya Prasad for defalcation of government money of Rs. 21,45,975/- and also for not following the government order. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of demand, petitioner paid entire amount of Rs. 23,36,507.97/- to Nawada Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawada and, therefore, nothing survive in this matter. In support of his submission Mr. Sharma relied upon Annexure-3 of present quashing petition which is No Objection Certificate (in short NOC) as issued by Nawada Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawada, issued under the signature of Managing Director. Beside aforesaid, it is pointed out that the present criminal case was lodged against petitioner, who was the Chairman of PACs at relevant point of time in year 2019 but still investigation is continued. It is submitted that earlier this petitioner approached this Court for quashing, FIR where one of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court directed to conclude the trial within six months through its order dated 05.07.2023 as passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39749 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 1855 of 2021. It is submitted that earlier this petitioner approached this Court for quashing, FIR where one of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court directed to conclude the trial within six months through its order dated 05.07.2023 as passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39749 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 1855 of 2021. It is pointed out that even thereafter the trial was not concluded for the simple reason that the investigation is still continue and the charge-sheet has not been submitted in the present matter, which is apparent from the order dated 08.01.2024 as passed by learned ACJM VI, Nawada. It is submitted that considering the aforesaid delay in investigation the FIR is issue is liable to be quashed on this ground also. 5. While concluding argument, Mr. Sharma submitted that the face of FIR nowhere suggest to make out any prima-facie case as to constitute offence under Sections 406, 409, 420/34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. In support of the submissions Mr. Sharma, relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [ (2008) 16 SCC 117 ]. 7. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP while appearing on behalf of State submitted that he filed counter affidavit in present matter on 28.09.2024. He also affirmed the deposit of Rs. 23,36,507.97/- to Nawada Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawada by the petitioner. 8. It would be apposite to reproduce FIR, which is as under:- 9. It would further be apposite to reproduce NOC as issued under the signature of M.D., of Nawada Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawada, which is as under:- 10. It would be also appropriate to reproduce order dated 08.01.2024 as passed by court of ACJM VI, Nawada in Kashichak P.S. Case No. 124 of 2019:- 11. It would further be apposite to reproduce para nos. 25 to 28 of the Pankaj Kumar Case (supra), which reads as under:- “25. Though, it is true that the plea with regard to inordinate delay in investigations and trial has been raised before us for the first time but we feel that at this distant point of time, it would be unfair to the appellant to remit the matter back to the High Court for examining the said plea of the appellant. Though, it is true that the plea with regard to inordinate delay in investigations and trial has been raised before us for the first time but we feel that at this distant point of time, it would be unfair to the appellant to remit the matter back to the High Court for examining the said plea of the appellant. Apart from the fact that it would further protract the already delayed trial, no fruitful purpose would be served as learned counsel for the State very fairly stated before us that he had no explanation to offer for the delay in investigations and the reason why the trial did not commence for eight long years. Nothing, whatsoever, could be pointed out, far from being established, to show that the delay was in any way attributable to the appellant. 26. Moreover, having regard to the nature of the accusations against the appellant, briefly referred to above, who was a young boy of about eighteen years of age in the year 1981, when the acts of omission and commission were allegedly committed by the concerns managed by his parents, who have since died, we feel that the extreme mental stress and strain of prolonged investigation by the Anti- Corruption Bureau and the sword of Damocles hanging perilously over his head for over fifteen years must have wrecked his entire career. 27. Be that as it may, the prosecution has failed to show any exceptional circumstance, which could possibly be taken into consideration for condoning the prolongation of investigation and the trial. The lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over a period of four years in a case of this type and inordinate delay of over eight years (excluding the period when the record of the trial court was in the High Court), is manifestly clear. 28. Thus, on facts in hand, we are convinced that the appellant has been denied his valuable constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial and, therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against him in the year 1987 and pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Latur, deserve to be quashed on this short ground alone.” 12. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions, it appears that the petitioner already deposited the outstanding amount of Rs. 23,36,507.97/- to Nawada Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawada. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions, it appears that the petitioner already deposited the outstanding amount of Rs. 23,36,507.97/- to Nawada Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nawada. It also transpires from the order dated 08.01.2024 as passed by learned ACJM VI, Nawada that still this matter is pending for investigation. The FIR, in issue, was lodged in the year 2019 itself. The FIR on its face, nowhere constitute offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Accordingly, taking note of aforesaid, the FIR bearing Kashichak P.S. Case No. 124 of 2019, with all consequential proceedings, if any, is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. Hence, this application stands allowed. 15. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court forthwith.