Jharkhand High Court
Bashishtha Narayan Pandey Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 18 March, 2021
W.P.(Cr). No.395 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No.395 of 2016
------
Bashishtha Narayan Pandey son of late Satya Narayan Pandey, resident of
village- Dhangaraha, P.O.- Sarottar, via- Hussaini, P.S. Dumariaghat,
District- East Champaran, Bihar
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau (Vigilance).
2. Nawal Kishore Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, Police
Inspector, Vigilance Bureau (Anti Corruption Bureau), Ranchi, P.O. and
P.S.- Ranchi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand (Informant).
.... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
For the A.C.B. : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
------
By Court: Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. This writ application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the alleged 2nd F.I.R. which is Annexure-6 of this writ application
and the entire proceeding thereof in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case
No.07 of 2015 corresponding to Special Case No.10 of 2015 which was re-
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420,
120-B(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now pending in the court of learned
Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi and to quash the letter No.260 dated
16.02.2015 issued from the Cabinet Vigilance.
3. The brief facts of the case is that Jeraikella P.S. Case No.11 of 2011
was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of
the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer,
Manoharpur to the Officer In-charge, Jeraikella Police Station alleging
W.P.(Cr). No.395 of 2016
therein that in the execution of the schemes, efforts have been made by the
petitioner and the co-accused persons to defalcate the money, delay in
execution, irregularity in maintenance of relevant documents i.e
Measurement Book etc. which have been kept in personal possession
instead of office, keeping amounts in personal accounts etc. and in
connection with that case, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody on 01.02.2013 but he was granted bail subsequently
during the pendency of the case. After investigation, charge-sheet has
been submitted and the proceeding is going on in the court of S.D.J.M.,
Porahat at Chaibasa. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner
was intimated by the Vigilance Police that he is required to attend them in
connection with impugned alleged 2nd F.I.R. in Vigilance P.S. Case No.07
of 2015 corresponding to Special Case No.10 of 2015.
4. Mr. Krishna Murari- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in view of the principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the cases of T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerela & Others reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 181 and Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Others
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762, the 2nd F.I.R. vide Vigilance P.S. Case No.07
of 2015 corresponding to Special Case No.10 of 2015, is not permissible in
law. It is next submitted that W.P. (PIL) No.7805 of 2013 was filed by
Jharkhand against Corruption seeking intervention of this court as the
Preliminary Enquiry (P.E.) No.17/12 registered by the Vigilance Police
with respect to MNREGA Schemes, has not been undertaken with due
diligence by them. It is then submitted that this court expressed its
displeasure that without intimating the court, the local police has already
registered the F.I.R. and completed the investigation and submitted the
charge-sheet and trial has commenced. Hence, it is submitted that the said
2nd F.I.R. be quashed.
5. Ms. Priya Shrestha- learned Special P.P. appearing for the A.C.B. on
the other hand submits that the Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 17.03.2015 passed in W.P. (PIL) No.7805 of 2013 after being aware of
all the facts including the submission of charge-sheet in Jeraikella P.S.
Case No.11 of 2011 has given its seal of approval to the cases being taken
W.P.(Cr). No.395 of 2016
over by the Vigilance and after recording the satisfaction of the learned
counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No.7805 of 2013 a Division Bench
of this court observed in that case that in view of all the similar cases
registered against the different officials and others at different police
stations in the same district, have been taken over by the Vigilance Bureau
for investigation and as the grievances projected by the petitioner in the
said writ petition has stood redressed and accordingly disposed of the
same finally vide its order dated 17.03.2015 in the said W.P. (PIL) No.7805
of 2013 and the said order of the Division Bench of this court has reached
finality as the same has not yet been challenged in any superior judicial
forum though the petitioner was well aware about the same at least since
the year 2016 as the copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-
7 to this writ petition. It is next submitted by Ms. Shrestha that as the
investigation of Jeraikella P.S. Case No.11 of 2011 has been taken over by
the Anti-Corruption Bureau with the approval of the court and the court
has given the seal of approval of the said transfer, so, Jeraikella P.S. Case
No.11 of 2011 will not proceed and the records of the said case will stand
transferred to the concerned Vigilance Court. Hence, S.D.J.M., Porahat at
Chaibasa will no more proceed with the said case. So, it cannot be said
that two F.I.Rs have been registered for the self-same occurrence rather
the F.I.R. of Vigilance P.S. Case No.07 of 2015 corresponding to Special
Case No.10 of 2015 is the only F.I.R. which holds the field. It is
therefore submitted that there is no illegality committed by anybody.
Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition, being without any merit be
dismissed.
6. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali,(supra) is concerned therein it has been
reiterated that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct
"further investigation", "fresh" or "de novo" and even "reinvestigation.
Paragraph 43 of the said judgment reads as under:
"43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the
criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
W.P.(Cr). No.395 of 2016
direct "further investigation", "fresh" or "de novo" and even
"reinvestigation". "Fresh", "de novo" and "reinvestigation" are
synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The
superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring
investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so
demand such action........."( emphasis supplied)
In this backdrop, considering the facts that Jeraikella P.S. Case No.11 of
2011 has ceased to exist upon registration of the said F.I.R by the Vigilance
Police Station and only one F.I.R. vide Vigilance P.S. Case No.07 of 2015
corresponding to Special Case No.10 of 2015 is existing at present, hence
this Court finds that there is no merit in the prayer made in this writ
application to quash the F.I.R. of Vigilance P.S. Case No.07 of 2015
corresponding to Special Case No.10 of 2015 or for that matter the entire
proceeding thereof.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition, being without any merit, is
dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th of March, 2021
AFR/ Animesh
