Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The petitioner in this instant application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Mehrama (Thakurgangti) P. S. Case No. 151 of 2012 including the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 409 & 34 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution story as would appear from the FIR is to the effect that a boundary wall measuring about 100 feet collapsed in the night of 05.07.2012 on account of lack of technical supervision of the construction of the said boundary wall of the diary building in village Kharkhodia under block Thakurgangti, District Godda.

4. Upon investigation, the police having found the case not true against the accused persons has submitted final report, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda vide order dated 20.05.2013 disagreed with the final report so submitted and took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 & 34 of the I.P.C.

5. Mr. J. S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 as well as the initiation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was at the relevant point of time working as an Executive Engineer. It has been submitted that the sample of the collapsed boundary wall were sent for analysis and the same was found to be as per the specifications. It is also been submitted that the boundary wall was subsequently reconstructed by the contractor/agency prior to institution of the FIR and since no wrongful loss was caused to the government, the initiation of the criminal case itself is an abuse of the process of Court. Learned counsel has also submitted that although the police has submitted final form vide final report no. 22 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013 on the ground of “mistake of facts”, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda while disagreeing with the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer did not assign any reason as to what prompted him to take cognizance for the offences alleged. It has also been submitted that the order dated 20.05.2013 shows total non-application of mind on the part of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Godda and in this context he has relied upon a judgment in the case of “Nupur Talwar Vs. C.B.I.” reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465 as well as judgment in the case of “Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. C.B.I.” reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609.

6. Countering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. has submitted that since the boundary wall was not constructed as per the requirement, the same collapsed leading to institution of an FIR. It has also been submitted that a Joint Inquiry Committee had conducted an inquiry and irregularity on the part of the petitioner in discharging his official duty of not taking due diligence was also taken note of and in such circumstances, the petitioner has been rightly fastened with the criminal liability. It has also been submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 20.05.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda had made a mention about perusing the case diary and thereafter coming to a conclusion that a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner. In such circumstances, it has been argued by the learned A.P.P. that the present application is liable to be dismissed.

7. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner rests upon the non-reasonings given in the impugned order dated 20.05.2013. It seems that upon investigation, the police had submitted final report showing the case to be that of “mistake of facts”, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda disagreed with the findings of the Investigating Officer and took cognizance for the