Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur) in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2012 (arising out of G.R. No. 1728 of 2012) by which cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant namely, Gopal Saha, the Block Development Officer, Chainpur, Kaimur issued a letter bearing No. 1491 dated 20.10.2012 addressed to the Officer in-charge of Chainpur Police Station, Chainpur alleging therein that during the Inspection of Schools, it transpired to the Informant that several persons have been appointed on the basis of forged signature of the informant in the said schools and details were given in the F.I.R.

4. It has further been alleged that with regard to the aforesaid incident, explanation was called for from the concerned Head Masters who submitted their respective replies stating therein that they had already informed in this regard to the Ex-Block Education Officer, Shri Birendra Singh. It has further been alleged that when the concerned registers were called for from the present Block Education Officer, Shri Suresh Kumar Singh, he informed that Ex-Block Education Officer (the petitioner herein) had not handed over any such document with regard to selection to him.

5. Further allegation is that the information was given to the District Education Officer, Kaimur vide letter No. 1317 dated 22.09.2012 and the District Magistrate, Kaimur vide letter No. 1358 dated 29.09.2012. Further allegation is that the District Magistrate, Kaimur vide letter dated 17.10.2012 directed the DEO that he himself is competent to lodge the F.I.R. and on that basis of said letter, a formal F.I.R. under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the petitioner and others vide Chainpur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2012 dated 01.11.2012.

6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was posted as Block Education Officer, Chainpur, Kaimur and superannuated from the post on 31.04.2012 and his name has wrongly been dragged only to harass him.

7. It has been further contended that the allegation against the petitioner is that he colluded with the coaccused who was the Block Teacher and issued appointment letters in their favour putting forged signature of the informant.

8. However, facts remains that contrary to the allegation, the same was duly signed by the informant. Further, as the salary of the Teachers were not paid, they preferred representations before the higher authorities followed by the complaint alleging bribe by the informant. Disturbed by the same, a false case was lodged denying the signature on the alleged appointment letters.

9. The further contention is that as per the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (henceforth for short ‘the Panchayat Teachers Rules’) which was amended in 2008, the selection process was done by a Committee under the chairmanship of ‘Prakhand Pramukh’ having Block Development Officer, Block Education Officer and a member of the Panchayat Samiti as members and all the selection proceeding was made available to one Balchand Ram on 22.12.2010. Further, a meeting was held on 10.03.2012 as also on 02.04.2012 and a decision was taken that the appointment letters should be issued under the joint signature of the Block Development Officer and the Block Education Officer.

10. Later, the ‘Prakhand Pramukh’ preferred complaint before the District Education Officer, Buxar alleging irregularities. Accordingly, three men Committee was constituted. The petitioner in his turn asked the ‘Prakhand Sadhan Sevi’, namely, Balchand Ram to provide all the documents relating to Midday Meal and the selection process of the Block Teachers but the same was not provided t