AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the cognizance order dated 07.02.2017 as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Amarpur P.S. Case No.331 of 2016, G.R. No.2282 of 2016, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against the petitioner.
The case of prosecution is based on the written report of the informant namely, Md. Nezam, Panchayat Secretary submitted before the Officer-in-Charge, Amarpur Police Station alleging therein that the petitioner in spite of several request on telephone did not hand over the relevant records and documents with regards to the Shikashak Niyojan, Sikshha Mitra-2006.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the relevant records and documents with regard to Shikshak Niyojan, Shikshha Mitra-2006 has already sent to the Block Education Officer, Amarpur, Banka, in original, vide Letter No.5 dated 13.08.2016. It is submitted further that B.E.O., Amarpur, Banka has given information that relevant records and documents with regard to Shikshak Niyojan, Shikshha Mitra-2006 was received in District Programme Officer (Establishment), Banka vide Letter No.548 dated 19.09.2016 and also send a copy of this effect to the Officer-in-charge, Amarpur Police Station and the Panchayat Secretary. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer of this case by ignoring all such unimpeachable documents, lodged case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC
It is submitted that in view of the official report, no case as alleged appears made out against this petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of cognizance is fit to be quashed/set aside.
In support of his submission, learned counsel has heavily relied upon Annexures-2, 3 and 4 of the present petition, which are as under:-
Learned counsel has further relied upon paragraph no. 102 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335].
It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph no.102 of the Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), which is as under:-
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(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 any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission and by taking note of above-mentioned departmental communications to the Investigating Officer of this case by concerned authority, giving clean cheat to this petitioner, it can be said safely that no cognizable offence as alleged made out against this petitioner.
Accordingly, by taking guiding note of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 07.02.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Amarpur P.S. Case No.331 of 2016, G.R. No.2282 of 2016 with all its consequential proceeding qua petitioner is hereby quashed/set aside.
The petition stands allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith.