The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and when no criminal offense is disclosed against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Purnendu Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Ram Prakash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawada in Roh P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is against another Usha Kumari who was also a teacher, but in a different school, namely, Primary School, Sadikpur, Roh, Nawada, whereas the petitioner was working, at the relevant time, in Upgraded Middle School, Ramchandrapur, Biharsharif. Learned counsel further informs that the name of the father of both Usha Kumari is same, namely, Baleshwar Paswan and in this view, he submitted that prosecution can only be drawn against one of the Usha Kumari on the basis of the school, as has been alleged in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the investigation based on the allegation made in the F.I.R. has been found to be false, for which the Investigating Officer is facing departmental proceeding which vitiates the entire allegation made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner.

4. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State informs that considering the disputed question of fact and the trial is pending, no interference can be made in view of the fact that, prima facie, case is made out under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

5. Heard the parties.

6. The question arises, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation made in the F.I.R., the order taking cognizance dated 25.05.2023 against the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The consideration requires for the same is to arrive to a definite finding, whether a compliant discloses criminal offence or not in the facts of the present case, fulfilling the essential ingredients of the offence as has been alleged against the petitioner. The only question in the instant case is, whether, there is any criminal offence disclosed in the F.I.R. so far as the petitioner is concerned.

8. The fact reveals that there is dispute relating to the identity of the petitioner, whether she has served at two places and has drawn salary simultaneously from the two schools after committing forgery, but at the same time, cognizance dated 25.05.2023 has been taken on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer on 20.02.2023, but the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer has been doubted, for which the investigating officer is facing departmental proceeding. It is interesting that the chargesheet was submitted by the said Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, whether the criminal proceeding being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against the petitioner can be allowed to proceed for the allegations made under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code?

9. For be