====================================================== Pramila Devi( Mukhiya of Selibeli Panchayat), W/O Firan Yadav, R/O Village - Uchhal v. 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3665 of 2012 ====================================================== Pramila Devi( Mukhiya of Selibeli Panchayat), W/O Firan Yadav, R/O Village - Uchhal, P.S. Basopatti, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director ( NEP), District Rural Development Authority, Madhubani 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani 4. The Block Development Officer, Basopatti, District Madhubani ====================================================== .... .... Opposite Party/s Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Umanath Mishra, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 12-12-2013 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. of Basopatti P.S. Case No.132 of 2011 dated 9.11.2011 registered for offences under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code as also her consequential criminal prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case. 3. It is not under dispute that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. as an accused. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was the elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3665 of 2012 (5) dt.12-12-2013 2 / 5 Selibeli. Besides the petitioner, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat has also been arrayed in the category of accused. Accused persons are alleged to have committed irregularities in giving benefits under Indira Awas Scheme to the beneficiaries. They are also alleged to have committed irregularities in making appointment on the post of teacher. The accused persons including the petitioner are alleged to have defalcated public fund by entering into a criminal conspiracy and by preparing forged documents. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying on certain documents, submits that in some co- llateral proceeding an enquiry was conducted by some other Officers and allegations against the petitioner were found to have been not supported. Therefore, it is pleaded that lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R. or consequential criminal prosecution of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. According to him, if the documents produced by the petitioner are examined by this Court, then this Court may come to a finding that accusations against the petitioner are false. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of Fr. Francis Mattathilani Vs. State of Bihar [2000 (2) PLJR 226] Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar [ 2007 (2) PLJR 320], Mukti Narayan Rai @ Mukti Rai Vs. The State of Bihar [2007 (4) PLJR 439] as also a judgment of the Hon’be Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2013 (4) PLJR (SC)284]. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has opposed the prayer and has submitted that investigation of criminal case cannot be stifled on 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3665 of 2012 (5) dt.12-12-2013 3 / 5 the basis of documents produced by the petitioner at this stage. According to him, the documents produced by the petitioner are required to be tested and examined firstly during the course of investigation and finally during the course of trial on the basis of materials/evidence produced by the parties. 6. In course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has fairly conceded that, now, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner besides others in the aforesaid criminal case for the offences alleged. The Hon’ble Apex Court very recently in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), while considering the scheme and scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., after considering the large umber of previous judgments, has laid down the law in paragraph 12 of the judgment, relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:- “The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the the court cannot acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet even before the charges are into materials, look 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3665 of 2012 (5) dt.12-12-2013 4 / 5 is filed or even during the application of framed or before discharge its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial”. ( Emphasis supplied) 7. After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on the record, as also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), relevant portion of which has been reproduced above, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. as also consequential criminal prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of certain documents and probable defence is completely misconceived. The documents produced by the petitioner cannot be taken as evidence at this stage. The documents produced by the petitioner are required to be examined/proved and tested during the course of trial. Admittedly, that stage is yet to reach. Admittedly, there are serious allegations of financial irregularities of the public fund and creation of forged documents against the petitioner, who was the Mukhiya, and other accused persons. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power for quashing the F.I.R. of aforesaid Basopatti P.S. Case No. 132 of 2011 dated 9.11.2011 as also the consequential criminal prosecution of the petitioner in the 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3665 of 2012 (5) dt.12-12-2013 5 / 5 aforesaid criminal case. 9. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Order of interim protection granted on 7.2.2012 by a Bench of this Court stands vacated. 11. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below with a direction to proceed further strictly in accordance with law. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)