Patna High Court - Orders
Madhuri Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 29 August, 2013
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36289 of 2013
======================================================
Madhuri Kumari daughter of Brij Deo Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-
Kurji, PS-Digha and District-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Veena Rani Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-08-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioner is making a prayer for quashing the order dated 25.1.2012 passed in Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 200/2011 for offences under sections 419, 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the FIR allegation has been made, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board invited the application form for examination of Diploma Certificate Entrance Competitive Examination of 2011 for admission in various institutions in the State of Bihar, accordingly, the petitioner made an application and appeared in the aforesaid Examination. After completion of the same, she appeared in the Interview. During Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36289 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 2/4 counselling, it was found, there was some discrepancy in the OMR Sheet where certain portions are to be written there and when again she was asked to rewrite the same, it could not tally with each other. Allegation has been made, the video-clips were also scrutinized and found, it was a case of impersonation. Accordingly, Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 200/2011 was instituted against her.
It appears from the record, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of her candidature in CWJC No. 4875 of 2012 and this Court examined the material minutely including videograph taken during the examination as well as the writing mentioned at OMR Sheet and the Court came to a conclusion, it was same lady appeared in the examination as well as the Interview. The view taken by the Writ Court and finding recorded therein the Court gave clean chit to the petitioner is as follows:
"The petitioner is aged approximately 24 years. The damage that had been done to her at this young age by institution of he FIR is not reversible. It shall be a stigma for her through out her life. If she applies for employment anywhere tomorrow, she shall have to disclose that she was made accused in a criminal case and was sent to custody on an allegation of impersonation. The employer may not Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36289 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 3/4 wait or be willing to hear what happened thereafter. It may be end of her career.
If the petitioner was otherwise eligible at the counseling and her candidature does not suffer from any deficiency in law the Board is directed to grant her admission in the Dental Course.
The petitioner deserved retribution. In absence of any challenge to the First Information Report, the Court refrains, the leaves her to pursue such remedies as she may be advised both with regard to the police report and retribution."
The order of the Single Judge was challenged in LPA No. 993 of 2012 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 18th October 2012 whereby and whereunder L.P.A. Court affirmed the positive finding of the Writ Court and dismissed the same. On the basis of finding of Writ Court, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuation of the proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. The criminal court cannot record any other finding, when the finding has been recorded by the Higher Court, it will be proper to quash the proceeding.
The counsel for the State has submitted that instead of challenging the FIR, he should approach the lower court and raise his objection on the basis of finding recorded by the Writ Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36289 of 2013 (2) dt.29-08-2013 4/4 Court.
Having considered the rival contention of the parties, the Writ Court has dealt with the matter on merit comparing hand writing recorded in OMR Sheet and rewritten at interview including, examined the video-clips of the petitioner at the time of examination as well as Interview, did not find the case of impersonation.
This Court feels, the petitioner is right, when the Higher Court has come to a positive conclusion, it is the petitioner who has appeared in both written examinations as well as interview, rejected the claim of impersonation and she felt trauma of being sent to the jail, the Writ Court opined that such an early age she had faced this dramatic situation scar caused will continue throughout her life. This Court also feels that continuation of proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.
Accordingly, order dated 25.1.2012 passed in Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 200/2011 for offences under sections 419, 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-