Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
Veena Kumari - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Cr. WJC No. 1101 of 2016
Decided On : 18-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rakesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: P.K. Verma and Divya Verma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper application of judicial mind while directing the institution of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
MANREGA - Quashing of Order - Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Section 30 of MANREGA Act, 2005 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the protection of action taken in good faith under Section 30 of the MANREGA Act, 2005 and the requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also referred to the non-disclosure of inaction of police and the need for proper application of judicial mind while directing the institution of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction to quash the order directing the institution of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the subsequent FIR registered against the petitioner based on a complaint of misappropriation of public money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order suffered from non-application of judicial mind and quashed the order and the subsequent criminal proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the protection of action taken in good faith under Section 30 of the MANREGA Act, 2005, the requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the non-disclosure of inaction of police while directing the institution of an FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order suffered from non-application of judicial mind and quashed the order and the subsequent criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and the subsequent criminal proceedings.
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction, of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to quash the order dated 19.8.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai whereby he has directed to institute an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.') on the basis of Complaint Case No. 14718 of 2014. Further prayer is to quash the FIR of Balia Police Station Case No. 373 of 2014 registered against the petitioner on the basis of said complaint of respondent No. 2 Ajit Kumar in pursuance of order dated 19.8.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. Respondent No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 14718 of 2014 against the petitioner with allegation that the petitioner while posted as Programme Officer of MANREGA, misappropriated public money of different Government schemes fully detailed in the complaint petition.
2. On perusal of the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai passed the order dated 19.9.2014 annexed at page 19 of the brief.
3. Submission of the petitioner is that under Section 30 of the MANREGA Act, 2005, there is protection for action taken in good faith by the public servants in such matter. Moreover, the complaint petition does not disclose that the respondent No. 2 had approached the police for institution of a police case of the matter or had complained to the higher police officials regarding non-institution of the FIR by the police in pursuance of the provisions under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. nor has sworn affidavit of the averment in the complaint petition, therefore, the institution of FIR is against the ratio decided in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. The State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2015)6 SCC 287 [: 2015(3) PLJR (SC)78]. His next contention is that though the complaint petition was filed under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the averment in the complaint petition would reveal that there is allegation of corruption against the public servant, hence, the police might submit charge-sheet under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, prior sanction under Section 19 of the said Act is essential. In the circumstances, the learned court below erred in entertaining the private complaint, of corruption against the public servant without prior sanction. Reliance has been placed on Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. reported in (2013)10 SCC 705.
4. The respondents have already appeared. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent or private-respondent No. 2 in spite of last indulgence allowed for filing of the counter affidavit on 4.4.2017. However, submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, at this stage, the trial need not be thwarted in spite of, prima facie, allegation is there against the petitioner.
5. Section 30 of MANREGA Act, 2005 reads as follows:--
"30. Protection of action taken in good faith.--No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the District Programme Coordinator, Programme Officer or any other person who is, or who is deemed to be, a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rules or Schemes made thereunder."
6. Submission of the petitioner is that the entire schemes were of the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 as mentioned in the complaint petition and the petitioner had joined there on 18.5.2011 as per charge report at Annexure-3. Therefore, there is no scope of allegation in the year 2014 that the petitioner defalcated the public money of expired scheme, rather contention is that due to the case lodged by the petitioner agai
