Sandeep Kumar, J. –

Ref. I.A. No. 01 of 2023.

I.A. No. 01. of 2023 has been filed for challenging the order dated 28.07.2022 by which cognizance of offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 01. of 2023 is allowed.

2. The prayer for quashing is treated as a part of the main prayer.

3. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2022 and the entire prosecution of the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 1475 © of 2017.

The prosecution story in brief is given hereinbelow: –

The opposite party no. 2 namely Ajeet Kumar has filed a complaint before the learned CJM, Begusarai alleging therein in that he was previously posted on the post of Junior Engineer, Manrega and at that time Veena Kumari (Petitioner) was the Programme Officer (Manrega) Baliya Prakhand. During her tenure, she misappropriated the government money and defalcated the amount of different schemes. During her work period of social forestry has been done under Manrega in Scheme No. 01/09-10, Scheme No. 02/09-10, Scheme No. 06/09- 10, Scheme No. 12/10-11, Scheme No. 26/10-11 and Scheme No. 27/10-11. He further alleged that Veena Kumari withdrawn the amount without verification of master roll and herself paid wages violating the rule and regulation. He further alleged that Veena Kumar has defalcated the amount Rs. 13,03,500/- in the above scheme of Manrega. The complaint of the complainant has been registered as Complaint Case 1475 (C) of 2017 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 13 (C) of the P.C. Act.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the informant of Balia P.S. Case No. 20 of 2012 registered against the opposite party no.2 under Sections 420, 120(b), 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the F.I.R. was registered on 07.02.2012 by the petitioner who was the Programme Officer in Balia. The F.I.R. was registered pursuant to the direction of District Magistrate, Begusarai. The F.I.R. with regard to the some schemes for which the complainant has filed a present complaint and the F.I.R. was directed to be filed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai after a detailed inquiry and the police submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party no.2 i.e. Ajit Kumar and other accused persons. The opposite party no.2 had earlier filed a similar Complaint No. 12047 © of 2014 against the petitioner making similar allegations and the complaint was withdrawn by the opposite party no.2. thereafter, the opposite party no.2 Ajit Kumar filed a Complaint Case No. 14718 © of 2014 with same and similar allegations as made in the present complaint in which Balia P.S. Case No. 373 of 2014 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner challenge the F.I.R. of Balia P.S. Case No. 373 of 2014 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2017.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is protected under Section 30 of the Manrega Act 2005 for actions taken in good faith by public servants in such matter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Anil Kumar and Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 705 in support of his submission that private complaint against the public servant without prior sanction cannot be entertained by the Courts.

7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire scheme for which the allegations are levelled are of the financial year 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner had joined there on 18.05.2011 and therefore, there is no scope that the petitioner defalcated the public money of the schemes which had already expired. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is being targeted by the opposite party no.2 due to malafide reasons only because she was the informant in a case registered against the petitioner as stated above.

8