RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–This writ application has been preferred on behalf of the sole petitioner seeking the following reliefs:—

“(I) An appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) quashing the first information report of Bhabua P.S. Case No. 72 of 2005 dated 19.03.2005 for offences under Sections 7 & 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the Act, 1988”) giving rise to Special Case No. 04 of 2005 in the court of Special Judge, South Bihar, Patna.

In alternative for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) terminating the further investigation in Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 72 of 2005 (Special Case No. 04 of 2005).

(ii) To any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is found entitled for giving complete justice to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case as discussed in the writ application are as follows:—

3. The petitioner was the Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Bhabhua, Kaimur. On 19.03.2005, the Collector Bhabhua was informed by one Bharat Singh that for preparing an injury report the petitioner was demanding a bribe and he has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by evening in Sadar Hospital Campus. The complainant Bharat Singh submitted his complaint to the Collector, Kaimur whereupon the Collector called the Block Development Officer, Bhabhua and deputed him as Magistrate to take action. It is alleged that the Block Development officer (the informant) together with Shri Pankaj Das the Officer-Incharge of Bhabhua Police Station went to Sadar Hospital in civil dress thereafter the trap was conducted and the petitioner was trapped accepting tainted money from one Shri Paras Nath Singh. It was the said Paras Nath Singh who had handed over the money to the petitioner. The tainted money was recovered from possession of the petitioner, he was arrested on the spot and the FIR was lodged giving rise to Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 72 of 2005 dated 19.03.2005 under Sections 7/9 of the Act, 1988. At this stage, the case has been investigated and finally a chargesheet has been submitted in the learned court below during pendency of this application on 24.01.2022.

4. Mr. S.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report is fit to be quashed taking into consideration the inordinate and huge delay in completion of investigation. It is submitted that after about 17 years of lodging of the FIR, only after this Court called upon the respondents to show as to why the investigation is not being completed, in a hurry chargesheet has been filed, very recently even as no sanction for prosecution has been granted by the competent authority on the proposal sent by the SDPO as back as on 09.07.2019 vide memo no. 1651. It is submitted that till date cognizance has not been taken by the learned jurisdictional court.

5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was earlier suspended from service and he reached his age of superannuation in the year 2019 whereafter the departmental proceeding pending against him was converted in a proceeding under Rule 45(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules in which the punishment for forfeiture of pension (including gratuity) has been imposed depending upon the result of the criminal case. It is his submission that the petitioner has already suffered in his life in many ways, he is almost 70 years of age and at this stage asking him to face the criminal case after 17 years of lodging of the FIR and 3 years after retirement from service will only be an abuse of the process of court.

6. In the supplementary affidavit filed on or about 05.11.2019 this petitioner has disclosed his age about 67 years showing his date of birth as 07.08.1952. It is stated that on completion of 67 years he has superannuated from service on 31.08.2019.

7. It is his submission that the FIR in the present case may be quashed keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 97, Vakil Prasad