Jharkhand High Court
Radhey Shyam Jha vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2013
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2114 of 2012
1. Radhey Shyam Jha
2. Jitendra Singh ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and another ... ... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners: M/s Samavesh Bhanj Deo & Ritu Kumar, Advocates
For the State : A.P.P.
-----
4/19.02.2013Since the other matter arising out of same complaint case, which has given rise to this case, has already been disposed of, this matter was heard.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.12.2011, passed by the then Magistrate, Chatra in Complaint Case No. 18 of 2011 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code has been taken against these petitioners and others.
The informant-Hulash Yadav lodged a case stating therein that a Check Dam was to be constructed over Totiatand Nala under the Scheme of NAREGA. A Scheme for construction of the aforesaid Dam was passed at a place for which even administrative sanction and technical sanction were granted by the authority. For keeping watch over the construction of the said Dam, a Vigilance Committee was also formed, but in spite of administrative sanction being granted for construction of the Check Dam at a particular place, the said Check Dam was never constructed over that place, rather it was constructed at different place and thereby it has been alleged that these petitioners, who happened to be the Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer, in conspiracy with other accused persons misappropriated the amount.
On the said allegation, a first information report was registered as Bashistha Nagar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2009 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners and others. The matter was investigated upon by the Investigating Officer but the Investigating Officer did not find the allegation to be true, rather it was found that the Check Dam has been constructed at the place for which administrative approval was given, and that the informant wanted to get the Check Dam constructed near his field but that was not found to be feasible and, therefore, at other place the Check Dam was constructed and under this situation, a final form was submitted, upon which the protest petition was filed by the informant, which was treated to be a complaint and was registered as Complaint Case No. 18 of 2011, wherein almost the same and similar allegations were made, which were there in the first information report. Upon it, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against these petitioners, which is under challenge.
Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the allegations made in the complaint never constitute any offence under which cognizance has been taken, as it is the case of the complainant that a Check Dam had been constructed but not at the place where the informant/complainant wanted to get it constructed but at a different place. In this regard, it was further submitted that the Investigating Officer during investigation did find that the Check Dam has been constructed at a place where it was found to be feasible and even administrative sanction had been granted for construction of the said Dam at the place where it has been constructed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it does appear that it is the case of the informant/complainant that the Check Dam has been constructed but not at a place where the informant wanted to get it constructed rather at different place. In such situation, no offence either of cheating or forgery is made out.
Accordingly, the order dated 21.12.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 18 of 2011 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners namely, Radhey Shyam Jha and Jitendra Singh, is hereby quashed.
In the result this application stands allowed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT