JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This Cr. M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the First Information Report and the entire proceeding thereof in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 09 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the prayer portion it has not been categorically mentioned but it has been mentioned in Para-4 of the instant petition that the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017 is the case assigned to the case after being transferred to Chaibasa and the Vigilance Case No. 09 of 2015 relates to the case while the same was in Ranchi before transfer of the case to Chaibasa.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner who is one of the accused of the said case, is that some irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the petitioner in the matter of implementation of MNREGA Scheme No. 274/2008-09 pertaining to construction of P.W.D. Main Road Bhaldungri to Sidua, Rajnawa (2 KM Grade I Part I). It is next submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted in Zila Parishad by way of additional charge and no advance amount had been given to the petitioner as alleged rather the same was given to the Assistant Engineer- Shashi Prakash and the petitioner was simply engaged by the Executive Engineer along with the co-accused Assistant Engineer to carry out day-to-day work under his instructions but no entrustment was made to him rather the entrustment was made to the Assistant Engineer and because of three rainy seasons, some damage was caused to Kachha Morum Road. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and Government Servant, presently posted and working as Assistant Engineer at Minor Irrigation Division No. III, Dimna, Mango, Jamshedpur and the reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence. Hence, it is submitted that the said F.I.R. be quashed and set aside.

5. Ms. Priya Shrestha learned Special P.P. appearing for the A.C.B. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner being the Junior Engineer, was responsible for several irregularities committed in project under the MNREGA Scheme and being a public servant, the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is next submitted that since the offence involves criminal conspiracy, so, even if there is no entrustment of money particularly to the petitioner but admittedly to the co-accused- Assistant Engineer in criminal conspiracy with whom the petitioner has committed the offence, hence, still the charges for the said offences can be established against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is then submitted that the defence of the petitioner cannot be the grounds for quashing the F.I.R., at the most, the defence of the petitioner can be raised by the petitioner during the trial of the case but the same cannot be appreciated at the threshold for quashing the F.I.R. without any evidence in the record and merely on a statement made on oath regarding the defence of the petitioner, the same cannot be treated as gospel truth.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, by way of illustration enunciated the list of cases where an F.I.R fire can be quashed, in paragraph 102 which reads as under:

102. xxx xxx xxx

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute an