AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 10-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jhanjharpur in G.R. No.751 of 2011 arising out of Andhramath P.S. Case No.28 of 2011 dated 20.07.2011, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against the petitioners.
The prosecution case is based upon written report of Block Education Officer, Laukahi namely, Jafar Hemam submitted before the S.H.O., Andhramath, alleging therein that petitioner no.1 namely, Md. Kamal Rahi has been appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher in the New Primary School, Dharhara Purnarwas tola under Gram Panchayat Raj Dharhara with forged signature of Mukhiya of aforesaid panchayat. The Headmaster of said school is petitioner no.2 namely, Smt. Sahanaj Begum and she is the own sister of petitioner no.1. It is alleged that she has also co-operated for fabrication of petitioner no.1. It was further alleged that the Mukhiya and Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Dharhara gave written statement to the informant that they are not appointed as panchayat teacher in any school under Gram Panchayat Dharhara in the year 2008 till date no appointment letter was issued under signature of Mukhiya and Secretary of the said Panchayat. Thereafter, legal action was taken against petitioner no.1. It is further alleged that petitioner no.1 discharged his duties in the aforesaid school and made signature on the attendance register of teacher and he has claimed his appointment as valid, which is in actual illegal. The information in this regard has been sent to the Higher Officer in the department.
On the basis of aforesaid written report, Andhramath P.S. Case No.28 of 2011 was registered on 20.07.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 468 read with 34 of the IPC against the petitioners.
After investigation, the police found this case false against petitioners and submitted closure report, where learned Jurisdictional Magistrate taking a different note, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under aforementioned sections of the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that merely on the basis of suspicion, the Block Education Officer, Laukahi while visiting once school was informed by Mukhiya and Secretary of panchayat that petitioner no.1 obtained service of government teacher on the basis of forged appointment letter, the present FIR was lodged against both petitioners. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter in view of allegation and submitted closure report against the petitioners but, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate without assigning any reason took cognizance.
It is submitted that being aggrieved with, both petitioners approached this Court through Cr. W.J.C. No.8000 of 2015, wherein they were given liberty to agitate all their issues before District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Madhubani (in short ‘the Appellate Authority’).
Arguing further, it is submitted that in view of aforesaid direction as passed by this Court, both petitioners have approached the Authority, where Panchayat Secretary was arrayed as an opposite party no.2, where during the proceeding, it was confirmed by Panchayat Secretary and also by Mukhiya that the joining letter of both petitioners are genuine, considering which, the Appellate Authority, Madhubani vide its order dated 10.10.2017 directed O.P. No.2 i.e. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dharhara, P.S.-Laukahi, Dist.-Madhubani to pay the salary of petitioners till date.
It is submitted that after passing the aforesaid order by the appellate authority, the payment was released in favour of both petitioners and they are still teaching in the school and in view of this, now nothing survives in this matter and, therefore, the impugned order of cognizance is fit to be quashed/set aside, as no case qua any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners.
Arguing further, learned counsel has relied upon 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.”
Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, as the Tribunal during being quasi judicial body upon adjudication found the appointment letter of petitioners genuine and thereby directed to make payment in favour of petitioners, which was not challenged before any higher forum, coupled with the fact that after investigation, the police submitted closure report against the petitioners, accordingly, by taking a guiding note of principle Nos. (3) and (5) of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jhanjharpur in G.R. No.751 of 2011 arising out of Andhramath P.S. Case No.28 of 2011 qua both above-named petitioners is hereby quashed/set aside.
The application stands allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith.
Footnotes
- 1.AFR/NAFR NAFR
- 2.CAV DATE NA
- 3.Uploading Date 11-08-2026
- 4.Transmission Date 11-08-2026