The court held that specific allegations in the FIR warranted a trial, as they disclosed a cognizable offence, and the delay in filing the FIR did not negate the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioner herein has come up for quashing of the proceeding being Amta P.S. Case no. 77 of 2011 dated 3rd March, 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 505 of 2011, presently pending before the Court of Judicial magistrate Amta Howrah. Opposite party no.2 herein Sri Pranab Chakraborty being erstwhile secretary of Balichak High School lodged a written complaint on 03.03.2021 alleging that the petitioner being the Headmaster of the school, in collusion with other accused persons has misappropriated government money of about 11 lakhs. On the basis of said complaint aforesaid proceeding was initiated and after completion of investigation police has submitted charge sheet against four accused persons, including the present petitioner.

2. Being aggrieved by the said impugned proceeding, petitioner contended that he is a retired Headmaster and had reputable service record of 26 years. His further case is that he joined in the service on 01.10.1982 and retired on 30.04.2009 while posted as Head master in the said school. Petitioner’s contention is that the FIR was lodged after expiry of a period of almost two years, after the retirement of the petitioner from the post of Headmaster and the said FIR reeks of malice and has been lodged with malafide intention. Petitioner’s further contention is that at the time of his retirement on 30.04.2009, he was accorded with all necessary certificate, which shows that school has no claim from him and he had no liability in the school whatsoever and accordingly the release order was issued in his favour on 30.04.2009 and as per resolution of managing committee the petitioner had handed over all charges including records, service books, cash book acquaintance rolls etc. and thereafter the petitioner was accorded with “no liability” certificate signed by District Inspector of Schools on 1st September, 2009

3. Petitioner’s further contention is that no sanction as required under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained prior to taking cognizance of the instant case against the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are absolutely vague and do not point to the guilt of the petitioner. The seizure list of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet do not point to the guilt of the present petitioner and also does not bring home the essential ingredients of section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by any stretch of imagination. Infact apart from vague and absurd allegations, there is nothing in the charge-sheet to support the case of the prosecution. Petitioner’s further contention is that the FIR maker has not explained the delay in lodging the FIR and in the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. A frustrated litigant have initiated the proceeding just to harass the petitioner and such frustrated litigants should not be permitted to fulfill their political agenda by invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court.

4. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations levelled in the FIR, even taken in their entirety does not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner. Mere bald allegations based on feelings and thoughts does not constitute an offence and no useful purpose will be served by allowing the impugned proceeding to continue any further. The charge sheet itself does not disclose the mode in which alleged offence was committed, nor it is clear from the charge sheet whether any wrongful loss was suffered by the school authorities or the