The court emphasized the rare exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and the need for a prima facie case to interfere with criminal proceedings at an early stage.

D.N.Prasad, J.

1. All the above-mentioned three cases including the Criminal Writ were heard together as they arisen out of the same F.I.R. and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Both the Criminal Misc, Cases above-mentioned have been filed by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them including the First Information Report being Basia PS Case No. 49/98 dated 18.11.1998 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 662/98 under Sections 420/406/418/120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief (Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, whereas C.R.W.J.C. No. 44 of 2000(R) was filed by the petitioner praying therein for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or an order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and criminal prosecution relating to the same Basia PS Case No. 49/98. 2-A. The short facts relating to the prosecution case is that one written report was submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Gumla alleging therein that there had been an inspection by the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla and other officers of N.R.E.P., Gumla and a joint report was submitted on 19.5.1997. It was alleged about damage to the construction in respect of as many as eight items of different projects due to technical defect in design and due to lack of proper technical and administrative supervision in terms of standard measurement and also due to use of sub-standard materials in such construction work by the officer concerned/petitioners, as a result of which the Government has been put to a loss of Rs. 25 lacs. It was also alleged that the concerned officers including the petitioners are mainly responsible for loss of the State Exchequer due to deliberate negligence on their part. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in Cr. Misc. No. 898 of 2000(R) claiming therein that the petitioner Radha Krishna Singh was concerned with the Scheme No. 2/93-94 and the said Scheme was related to the construction of R.C.C. culvert over Chutia Nala. Technical sanction of the scheme was also granted on 7.8.93. It is alleged that the petitioner being the Executive Engineer did not apply his mind for the verification of the work as also to whether the same has been done according to the estimate or not. Before construction started, no objection was raised by the petitioner as the petitioners along with Block Development Officer, Basia and the Junior Engineer, Basia along with other persons are mainly responsible to put great loss to the State. It is also claimed that the Scheme No. 2/93-94 was estimated to cost of Rs. 4,98,300.00 and the said scheme was technically allowed on 13.8.1993. Bill was also submitted by the Junior Engineer on 3.1.1994 which was counter signed by the petitioner on the same. All the works were done in a hasty manner. Some items like iron rods and other materials were not applied according to the estimate and, therefore, the construction of R.C.C. culvert swept away and damages were caused due to rain. The petitioner being the Executive Engineer was expert in assessing the technique and as the sub-standard materials were used, the said Culvert washed away in the rain and for which the petitioner is mainly responsible for the loss. Thus, the petitions filed for quashing is not maintainable and it is fit to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

5. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted before me that the petitioners have been falsely dragged in this case, as admittedly the Block Development Officer, Basia vide his letter dated 17.9.1998 submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla with the report of rain fall during the year 1992-98 and due to heavy rain fall in July, 1996, the said culvert washed away and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner