Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 January, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24155 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2012 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Arvind Kumar Son Of Late Dasu Singh Resident Of Village - Harnaha Tola,
Police Station - Chowk, Patna City, Patna, Bihar - 800008, Presently Posted
As District Statistical Officer, Hazipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Pramod Kumar Mishra Son Of Late Hari Shankar Mishra Resident Of
Village - Mau, Police Station - Vidyapati Nagar, District - Samastipur, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Kumud Ranjan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-01-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition for quashing preferred
against order dated 17.01.2014, passed in G.R case no.
330 of 2012 arising out of Piro P.S. Case No. 19 of 2012
dated 18.01.2012 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhojpur at Ara where cognizance has been taken against
the petitioner for the offence under sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC presently pending before Court of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
2/8
learned A.C.J.M-VI, Bhojpur at Ara.
3. It has been alleged that in Financial year
2010-11, one Mahendra Ram, son of Bulaki Ram of
Akaruan, Gram Panchayat, Village-Rajapur, was selected
as beneficiary for Indira Awas Yojana, under schedule
caste category and therefore Block office had issued
payment advice to P.N.B. Bank to pay a sum of Rs.
30,000/- as first installment but another Mahendra Ram,
Son of Ram Deo Ram (Co-accused) of same village
withdrawn the said amount by giving his A/C No. 37785.
It has further been alleged that when Mahendra Ram (co-
accused), Son of Ram Deo Ram of Rajapur village given
application for second installment of Rs. 15,000/-, then
Block office inquired into the matter and it came to the
light that Mahendra Ram, son of Ram Deo Ram (co-
accused) of Village Rajapur had filed an affidavit before
Block Office as Mahendra Ram, Son of Bulaki Ram of
village Rajapur and deceived the Block office and got the
amount of Indra Awas Yojana after giving his old A/C no.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
3/8
37785 (P.N.B) and withdrew the amount fraudulently. It
has further been alleged that Mahendra Ram, Son of
Bulaki Ram of village Rajapur gave complaint that he has
not received benefits under Indra Awas Yojana whereafter
this matter was came in knowledge of concerned officials.
It has further been alleged that as he had received
benefits under Indra Awas Yojana in the financial year
2010-11 therefore, he was not entitled for any benefits
under the same scheme for financial year 2011-12.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was posted as Block Development
Officer (B.D.O.) at district Ara. It is pointed out that he
was not named in the FIR but his name was added as an
accused when the charge-sheet was submitted on
21.12.2013
through charge-sheet no. 279 of 2013
whereafter, the ld. trial court took cognizance against this
petitioner vide impugned order dated 17.01.2014 which
is the subject matter of the present quashing.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
petitioner that being B.D.O., the petitioner transferred
the amount of Rs. 30,000 in the bank account of
beneficiary namely, Mahendra Ram, son of Bulaki Ram
which is the part of the FIR itself, but the same amount
was withdrawn fradutently by another person having
same name Mahendra Ram, son of Ram Deo Ram. It is
submitted that entire thrust of allegations is available
against the said named co-accused person but during the
course of investigation certain persons made their
statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that alleged
withdrawal by Mahendra Ram, son of Ram Deo Ram was
not possible without involvement of petitioner being
B.D.O. It is submitted that merely on the basis of
suspicion the petitioner being the B.D.O was made
accused and charge-sheet was submitted against him. It
is further pointed out by learned counsel that the
successor of the petitioner issued notice to the co-accused
Mahendra Ram, son of Ram Deo Ram regarding deposit
of withdrawal amount. It is pointed out that save and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
except disbursing cash to the name of beneficiary i.e.,
Mahendra Ram, son of Bulaki Ram, in official capacity
nothing appears against this petitioner except suspicion.
6. It is also pointed out that the impugned
order, which is a cognizance order dated 17.01.2014 was
passed without supplying any reasons and was ordered in
a very mechanical manner and therefore, on this score
also the cognizance qua petitioner be quashed/set aside.
7. In support is his submissions learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Kanchan Kumar vs.
State of Bihar reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577.
8. In this context, it would be apposite to
reproduce para no. 102 of State of Haryana and Ors.
vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 which reads as follows:-
"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant provisions of
the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles
of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
we give the following categories of cases by way
of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
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."
9. From the perusal of record and taking note
of submissions of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it transpires that the petitioner was working as
B.D.O. and was not named in the FIR and even the case
diary which was said to be perused at the time of
cognizance, reflects nothing beyond suspicion qua
petitioner. It is an admitted position that the beneficiary
was not the desired persons but noting transpires during
investigation beyond suspicions qua this petitioner.
10. In view of the same it can be said safely
that no case qua petitioner is made out.
11. Accordingly, impugned order of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24155 of 2024 dt.30-01-2025
cognizance dated dated 17.01.2014 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, is hereby set aside
and quashed qua above-named petitioner with all its
consequential proceedings.
12. Let copy of this order be sent to the
learned trial court, without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.02.2025
Transmission Date 04.02.2025
