AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 25-08-2026
Heard the parties.
The present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2018, passed in G.R.No.1546 of 2016, T.R. No. 1546 of 2018 arising out of Lakhnaur (R.S.O.P.) P.S. Case no.171/2016, whereby and under, the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Jhanjharpur has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 420, 409, 120 (B) of I.P.C. against the petitioner.
The prosecution case speaks in brief that Sri Ahsan, the District Programme Officer, Madhubani submitted his letter no. 2999 dated 26.09.2016 to the S.H.O. Lakhnaur P.S. for registering F.I.R. against the petitioner, Ram Narayan Yadav stating therein that he got him appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Second Primary Teacher (Main) competitive examination 1996 by setting up another student in his place and worked as Assistant Teacher from 01.05.2000 to 06.05.2010 at Primary School Jhanjharpur (R.S.). Accordingly, he had received salary on that post. Therefore, a direction has been made for instituting F.I.R. for embezzlement of the Government money.
on the basis of aforesaid letter of the informant, Lakhnaur (R.S.O.P.) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016 was registered on 27.09.2016 implicating this petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409, 120-B of the IPC.
After concluding the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted and, accordingly, upon the perusal of material available on record, the learned jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 03.11.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409 and 120-B of the IPC.
It is submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that the present FIR was lodged just to settle the personal score out of personal vengeance. It is pointed out that informant was in inimical terms with this petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner qualified primary teacher competitive examination in the year 1996 and thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 27.07.2000 by the DSE, Madhubani. He continued his service for ten years, whereafter he decided to contest election of MLA and, thereafter, on instance of his opponent, this informant lodged the present FIR, which was lodged with allegation that in the competitive examination which was held in the year 1996, this petitioner was impersonated. It is also submitted by Mr. Singh that the lodging of FIR after 17 years that too with the allegation of impersonation suggest only oblique and ulterior motive to prevent this petitioner to contest election against local MLA, who is the co-villager of the informant, namely, Mintu Kumar.
It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that during the investigation, nothing was gathered to suggest that by whom this petitioner was impersonated. It is submitted that even the cognizance order is non-speaking and without any cogent materials, the cognizance was taken against this petitioner.
It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, the impugned order of cognizance dated 03.11.2018 is liable to be set-aside/quashed.
It is further submitted that the allegation nowhere satisfied prima facie any of the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420, 409, and 120-B of the IPC, for which the cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate through impugned order dated 03.11.2018.
In support of his submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].
It would be apposite to reproduce the para no. 102 of Bhajan Lal Case (supra), which reads 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 informant 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 nay 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 persons 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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act, 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 facts and circumstances of the case and further by taking note of the fact it can be gathered safely that the FIR in issue was lodged after 17 years, when this petitioner after resigning from the service joined politics. This Court is convinced enough that FIR was lodged out of oblique/ulterior motive to settle the personal vengeance, due to reasons as discussed aforesaid. Cognizance order also appears non-speaking, accordingly, the impugned cognizance order dated 03.11.2018, passed by learned A.C.J.M, 1st Jhanjharpur (Madhubani) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B is hereby set aside/quashed qua petitioner with all its consequential proceedings in view of Bhajan Lal Case (supra).
Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
Let the copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.
Footnotes
- 1.AFR/NAFR NAFR
- 2.CAV DATE N/A
- 3.Uploading Date 25.08.2026
- 4.Transmission Date 25.08.2026