Patna High Court
Sushila Devi vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 July, 2013
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ No.375 of 2010
===========================================================
Sushila Devi, Wife of Sri Ashok Mishra, resident of Village- Daniyalpur, Gram
Panchayat at Raj-Goura-03, P.S.- Teghara, District- Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The State of Bihar through Director General and Inspector General of Police,
Bihar.
2.The Inspector General of Police Bhagalpur Zone, Bhagalpur.
3.The Deputy Inspector of Police Munger Range, Munger.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.
5.Sri Ravi Kant Tiwari, Son of not known to the petitioner, the then Civi S.D.O.,
Teghara at present posted as G.M., F.C.I.
6.Amritendu Shekhar Thakur, Son of not known to the petitioner at present posted
as Dy. S.P., Teghara, Begusarai.
7.Kaushlendra Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, the then B.D.O.,
presently posted at S.D.O., Tarapur, Munger.
8.Ramdular Prasad, Son of not known to the petitioner, at present officer in charge,
Teghara.
9.Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, the then Block Panchayati Raj officer at present posted
as B.D.O., Thawe, District- Gopalganj.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mirtyunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Naushaduzzoha, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 02-07-2013 Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 192 of 2009 dated 28th October, 2009 for the offence under Sections 409 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In paragraph no.-5 of the writ application, the main ground taken against the case instituted is competency of Block Patna High Court CR. WJC No.375 of 2010 dt.02-07-2013 2/5 Panchayat Raj Officer to inquire and get the case instituted since he is not at all authorised to do so into the matters relating to Gram Panchayat/Panchayat Samitees without any prior information to and subsequent direction of the District Magistrate after perusal of the report, if any, in view of Annexure-2 i.e. notification of Government of Bihar, Department of Panchayati Raj vide Memo No. 4383 dated 26th August, 2008 which reads as such:-
fcgkj ljdkj iapk;rh jkt foHkkx vf/klwpuk la[;k&2i@fo&6&118@2008 4383 iVuk] fnukad 26-08-2008 fcgkj iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 2006 ,oa fcgkj iapk;r jkt ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2007 dh /kkjk 152 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj ftys esa xzke iapk;rksa ,oa iapk;r lfefr;ksa ls lacaf/kr fdlh ekeys dh tkWap djus gsrq lacaf/kr ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh dks lkekU; :I ls izkf/kd`r djrh gSA ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh vius v/khuLFk fdlh inkf/kdkjh ls xzke iapk;rksa ,oa iapk;r lfefr;ksa ls lacaf/kr ekeys dh tkWp lEiUu dj ldrs gS] ij og inkf/kdkjh vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh ls U;wu iafDr dk ugh gksxkA ftyk ifj"kn~ ls lacaf/kr ekeys dh tkWp gsrq lacaf/kr izeaMyh; vk;qDr dks izkf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA blds vfrfjDr vuqeaMy n.Mkf/kdkjh rFkk ftyk iapk;r jkt inkf/kdkjh vius {ks=k/khu xzke iapk;rksa iapk;r lfefr;ksa ls lacaf/kr ekeys dh tkWap vH;kosnu izkIr gksus ij dj ldsaxs rFkk ,rn~ lEcU/kh tkWp osnu ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh dks Hkst ldsaxsA ijUrq bl izdkj ds tkWap dh iwoZ lwpuk ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh dks Hkstk tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ljdkj le;≤ ij vfHkfyf[kr fd;s tkus okys dkj.kksa ls fdlh vU; izkf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh f=Lrjh; nk;rksa ds ekeyksa dh tkWp djk ldsaxhA tkWp inkf/kdkjh dks tkWp ds iz;kstukFkZ lk{; ysus vkSj xokgksa dks mifLFkr gksus rFkk lk{;ksa ,oa nLrkostksa dks izLrqr djus gsrq foo'k djus ds fy, flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk 1908 ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; dh fjfDr;kW gksxhA ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh tkWp izfrosnu vius erO; ds lkFk ljdkj dks vxzlkfjr djsx a sA blds leqfpr vfoZyksdu ds mijkUr ljdkj fof/k ds vuqlkj dkjZokbZ dj ldsxhA ;g vkns'k rqjar izo`r gksxkA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo d`0 i`0 m0@---
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.375 of 2010 dt.02-07-2013 3/5 Kkikad&2i@fo&6&118@2008 4383 iVuk] fnukad 26-08-2008 izfrfyfi %& v/kh{kd lfpoky; eqnz.k] xqytkjckx] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vxys vlk/kkj.k vad esa izdk'kukFkZ vxzlkfjrA d`I;k vf/klwpuk dh 500 izfr;kWaiapk;rh jkt foHkkx dks miyC/k djkus dh d`ik dh tk;A ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo Kkikad&2i@fo&6&118@2008 4383 iVuk] fnukad 26-08-2008 izfrfyfi %& eq[; lfpo] fcgkj iVuk@ eq[;ea=h ds iz/kku lfpo] fcgkj iVuk@ lHkh foHkkx ds iz/kku lfpoA lfpo ,oa foHkkxk/;{k@lHkh izeaMsyh; vk;qDr@ lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh@lHkh mi&fodkl vk;qDr&lg&eq[; dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh@ lHkh izeaMyh; mi funs'kd] iapk;r jkt@lHkh ftyk iapk;r jkt inkf/kdkjh@lHkh izpk;Z] iapk;r izf'k{k.k laLFkku@ fcgkj jkt; iapk;r ifj"kn~ E;wft;e jksM+ fcgkj iVuk@ funs'kd] iz'kkldh; izf'k{k.k laLFkku] fcgkj okYeh] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo Kkikad&2i@fo&6&118@2008 4383 iVuk] fnukad 26-08-2008 izfrfyfi %& lfpo] fcgkj fo/kku ifj"kn~ @ lfpo] fcgkj fo/kku lHkk@ fuca/kd iVuk mPp U;k;ky;@egkf/koDrk] fcgkj] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA ljdkj ds iz/kku lfpo
4. And in counter affidavit in paragraph no.-11, it is said that it requires no comment, but in paragraph no.-6 it is said that under Section 39(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Block Development Officer was competent to lodged the case as said section reads as such:-
"39. Public to give information of certain offences
- (1) Every person, aware of the Commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely:-
(i) sections 121 to 126, both inclusive, and section 130 (that is to say offences against the State specified in Chapter VI of the said case);
(ii) sections 143, 144, 145, 147 and 148 (that is to say, offences against the public tranquillity specified in Chapter VIII of the said Code);
(iii) sections 161 to 165A, both inclusive (that is to Patna High Court CR. WJC No.375 of 2010 dt.02-07-2013 4/5 say, offences relating to illegal gratification);
(iv) sections 272 to 278, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to adulteration of food and drugs, etc.);
(v) sections 302, 303 and 304 (that is to say, offences affecting life);
[(va) section 364A (that is to say, offence relating to kidnapping for ransom, etc);]
(vi) section 382 (that is to say, offence of theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft);
(vii) sections 392 to 399, both inclusive, and section 402 (that is to say, offences of robbery and dacoity);
(viii) section 409 (that is to say, offence relating to criminal breach of trust by public servant, etc.);
(ix) sections 431 to 439, both inclusive (that is to say, offence of mischief against property);
(x) sections 449 and 450 (that is to say, offence of house-trespass);
(xi) sections 456 to 460, both inclusive (that is to say, offences of lurking hosue-trespass); and
(xii) sections 489A to 489E, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to currency notes and bank notes);
shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or Police Officer of such Commission or intention;".
5. The First Information Report appears instituted on the information received from Block Panchayat Raj Officer indicating some alleged irregularities committed by the Panchayat authorities including petitioner an Ex-Mukhiya surfaced during inquiry conducted by the informant on direction of Block Development Officer, but it is silent about any information or direction of the District Magistrate.
6. The above facts indicate non-
compliance/observation of the directions as contained in notification Patna High Court CR. WJC No.375 of 2010 dt.02-07-2013 5/5 issued as per the provisions of Special Act.
7. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties are not in a position to say about the actual stage of on going investigation nor there is anything to show its outcome. Thus, in the case of non-submission of final form, the First Information Report may be treated non est to the extent of petitioner. Accordingly, with the above observation, this application stands disposed of.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Praveen-II/-