Criminal proceedings can be quashed when based on unsubstantiated allegations, especially in cases of inordinate delay in the investigation, which infringes on the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

The present application has been preferred for quashing of First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) of Bhagalpur (Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014 dated 13.12.2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).

2. As per case of prosecution, a piece of land which was owned by the informant was leased to her uncle for business purposes, which was further sub-let to co-accused, namely, Abhay Kumar Singh as the business of her uncle did not go well. The said co-accused Abhay Kumar Singh established a rice mill on the land of the informant, who approached in January, 2013 to uncle of the informant and requested to provide the original land deed on the pretext of getting correct information regarding boundaries and specifications of the land. The original document of land, which was obtained by co-accused Abhay Kumar Singh as aforesaid, was not returned to the informant, and later on, she came to know that co-accused Abhay Kumar Singh in connivance with the petitioner mortgaged the land of the informant and took a supply contract of paddy to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (in short, “Corporation”) worth Rs. 35 lakhs with an intention to siphon off the money and get the land of the informant sold.

3. The petitioner said to be posted as District Manager of Corporation, Dist.-Bhagalpur, at the relevant point of time.

4. In the background of the aforesaid written information, Bhagalpur (Adampur) P.S. Case No.924 of 2014 was lodged against the petitioner on 03.12.2014.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that earlier a quashing application was preferred by the petitioner to quash the aforesaid FIR, which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No.11396 of 2015 but, the same was dismissed by this Court through its order dated 06.02.2018. It is pointed out that the argument which was raised in the aforesaid quashing petition was that for same cause of action another FIR was already lodged by the uncle of the informant being Sultanganj P.S. Case No.284 of 2014. It is submitted that the informant herself has given no objection regarding the plot in issue, where the rice mill of the co-accused is situated. It is submitted that the present FIR was instituted only after Certificate Case No.6 of 2014-15 was lodged against O.P.No.2 by District Administration.

6. It is further submitted that the order as passed in Cr. Misc. No.11396 of 2015 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but, the same was also denied through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.30123 of 2018 vide order dated 07.09.2018.

7. Taking account of the aforesaid dismissal of prayer of quashing the petition of petitioner upto the Supreme Court, it is pressed that the present quashing petition preferred on the second occasion on the ground of changed circumstance of inordinate delay in investigation that even after the lapse of almost eleven years, the charge-sheet has not been submitted.

8. Learned counsel, qua maintainability of the present second quashing petition, submitted that there is no bar regarding maintainability of the second quashing petition and in this context, referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and Ors. reported in (1975) 3 SCC 706 which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar, IAS vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in Live Law 2021 SC 281.