Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
Chullhan Ram S/o Late Dilram Ram - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.678 of 2022
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5, Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5
For the Vigilance : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, SPL PP, Vigilance.
IMPORTANT POINT
Interference with police investigation should be rare, and grounds for quashing an FIR are limited to specific circumstances as laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Alleged Corruption - IPC 420/120(B)/201, Prevention of Corruption Act 13(2) - Neeharika Infrstructure Pvt Ltd. v. State of Marashtra & Ors (2021 SCC OnLine 315), R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Village Level Worker, is accused of not providing relevant documents regarding the appointment of primary teachers, leading to an FIR under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR based on the claim of handing over charge to his successor in 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a cognizable offence was made out against the petitioner, and the plea for quashing the FIR was dismissed. The petitioner was given the liberty to raise points at the time of framing of charge.
Issues: Alleged failure to provide relevant documents, plea for quashing the FIR, involvement of the petitioner in the alleged corruption
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited the principle that interference with police investigation should be rare and only in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. It also referenced the grounds for quashing an FIR as laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab.
Final Decision: The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted the liberty to raise points at the time of framing of charge.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR bearing Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 35/2016 registered under sections 420/120(B)/201 of the IPC and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act arising out of Khaira (Nagara) PS Case No. 120/2016 instituted on 23.07.2016.
3. The petitioner was appointed as VLW (Village Level Worker) in the year 1993 in the district of Saran and was subsequently, given additional charge as Secretary of the Nagara Gram Panchayat. During his tenure in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006, the petitioner made appointments of primary teachers in Nagara Gram Panchayat.
4. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in Patna High Court bearing CWJC No. 15459/2014 alleging gross illegality committed in appointment of primary teachers on the basis of forged education certificates, by manipulating the merit list for extraneous consideration and by violating the norms of appointment. This Court directed for vigilance inquiry.
5. The Vigilance Team demanded the documents regarding appointments for the period 2003 to 2006 from Block Education Officer and the Block Education Officer, in turn, asked the petitioner to hand over the documents regarding the appointments made by him between the period 2003 to 2006 in which the petitioner was appointing authority and custodian of the documents. The petitioner did not provide the relevant papers demanded by the Block Education Officer and accordingly, an FIR bearing Khaira (Nagara) PS Case No. 120/2016 was lodged by the Block Education Officer alleging therein that the petitioner, being the custodian of the documents of the appointment process, has not handed over the relevant papers and has destroyed the evidence regarding appointment with an intention to give undue advantage to the appointees who were appointed inasmuch as the majority of the appointees were appointed without following the procedure for appointment and on the basis of forged/fake certificates and manipulated merit list.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondents No. 2 to 6/ Vigilance Investigation Bureau stating therein that Block Education Officer, Nagra, Saran has registered Khaira (Nagara) PS Case No. 120/2016 and the case is being investigated by Saran District Police and not by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the FIR submits that the petitioner was transferred to Dariyapur Block of District Saran from his previous place of posting, Jalalpur Block in the year 2008. In pursuance of his transfer, he handed over charge to his successor, namely, Hare Ram Prasad Yadav by handing over the entire documents/papers including the papers regarding appointment of primary teachers. This fact would be evident from Annexure-3 which is a document dated 05.10.2008 regarding handing over and taking over charge.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 7/, the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra, stating therein that the required documents related to the appointments of primary teachers like application forms, counselling registers, certificates and appointment letters could not be produced to be verified by the Respondents No. 2 to 6 including Block Education Officer. The documents regarding primary teachers were not submitted to the BEO by the petitioner for verification who was the then Panchayat Secretary, Nagra, Saran.
9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 7 submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any case regarding quashing of FIR inasmuch as on the basis of written report submitted by BEO, Nagra, Saran, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner for the offences committed under sections 420/120(B)/201 of the IPC and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of the FIR, the investigation proceeded and statement of the witnesses was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The evidences collected during investigation till date, supervision made by the supervising authority and as
