Rakesh vs State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar, J.—The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 23.7.1999 passed by Sri P.K. Dikshit, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sheikhpura, in G.R. No. 536 of 1995 (arising out of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 265 of 1995). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has refused to discharge the petitioner and the court was of the view that there is material for framing of charges under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the accused/petitioner to remain physically present on 17.8.1999 for the purpose of framing of the charges.

Short fact of the case is that on the basis of a written report of the District Superintendent of Education, Sheikhpura, an F.I.R. vide Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 265 of 1995 was registered naming the petitioner as accused for offence under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the written report that an enquiry was conducted "and it was found that the petitioner got his admission in Teachers Training School, Sheikhpura on the basis of forged Matriculation Certificate as well as on an allegation that the petitioner, though, had failed in the Graduation examination, on the basis of forged certificate, he was continuing in service. It was alleged that the accused petitioner for his personal gain has forged documents and on the basis of said written report, an F.I.R. was lodged. After investigating the case, police found the allegation as true and thereafter a charge sheet was submitted in the case in the month of April, 1996.

After the cognizance order was passed by the learned Magistrate and the completion of supply of police papers u/s 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the discharge petition, a specific plea was taken by the petitioner that on the same charge a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and on 14.8.1995 he was put under suspension and Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He submits that the local authority was not authorized to accord sanction for prosecution for offence other than offences under Sections 14 and 14(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On this ground alone, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance.

Sri Brij Kishore Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this petition is liable to be rejected without going into the merit of the case. He further submits that in this case on the prosecution report, cognizance order was passed in the year 1987 and thereafter despite best efforts by the court, attendance of petitioner could not be secured. Even after issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner''s attendance was not secured. Fade up with the attitude, however, finally by order dated 17.4.1998, the learned Magistrate declared the petitioner as permanent absconder and thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court after more than one and half year from, the date of his declaration as absconder. He further submits that the point as to whether on the relevant dated the Chairman of the Municipal Corporation was competent to accord sanction or not, can be looked by the court below itself. This matter may not be looked into by this Court that too while exercising power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, he has prayed. for rejection of the present petition.

Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also examined the entire order sheet of the court below, surprisingly, while making a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution, the petitioner except order sheet has not brought on record even single chit of papers. The prosecution report has also not been brought on record by the petitioner and only by way of making pleading in his petition, he has made a prayer for quashing of entire prosecution. In absence of prosecution report and other required documents, it is difficult for this Court to examine anything in the present case and, as such, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance, which has been brought on record by the petitioner. Accordingly this petition is rejected.

In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Since the petitioner was declared permanent absconder and the matter is very old, it is desirable to direct the petitioner to appear before the court below without any delay.

With the above observation and direction, the application stands rejected.