ARUN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to SC- 22. There has been no appearance on behalf of respondent no.6. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR bearing Sasaram Mufassil P.S. Case No.58 of 2002 registered under Sections 409, 420, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Contention on behalf of petitioner is that he was posted at District Jail, Sasaram as an Assistant. He was not entrusted with any specific work save and except having been allotted in routine manner. More particularly, he was not entrusted with history ticket, remission card, release diary with regard to six released convicts, namely, Baidyanath Kurmi, Ramji Kurmi, Ramashish Kurmi, Bihari Kurmi, Gauri Kurmi, Kesho Kurmi who were released on 30.08.1997, rather the same happens to be in custody of the then Superintendent, Ashok Kumar Chaudhary who had managed the affair and got the aforesaid convicts released by hook and crook and so the FIR arraying him as an accused, is liable to be quashed. Then submitted that there happens to be specific provision enumerated under Bihar Jail Manual where under duties and responsibilities of clerks, Superintendent of Jail has been defined and for that referred Rule 51 to 56 as well as 242. Further submitted that as per Rule 71 of the Jail Manual, the subordinate staffs are only authorized to discharge those provisions which happen to be entrusted to him by a written order of Superintendent. There happens to be no written order and on account thereof, petitioner cannot be held responsible. Further it has been submitted that as per Rule 515 of the Bihar Jail Manual, the history sheet of release convict are to be destroyed within one or two year which period had already expired and therefore, now it is not possible, to trace out the same. Further submitted that petitioner including others was show caused and the same was filed explaining the situation. Not only this one Lalan Prasad Singh had complained before Hon'ble High Court, Patna and accordingly I.G., Prison was directed to inquire into the matter who, after due inquiry, submitted his report vide Letter No.3178 dated 30.07.1999 (Annexure-5) disclosing that there happens to be no illegality / irregularity. It has further been pleaded that departmental proceeding launched against Ashok Kumar Chaudhary concluded exonerating him. Therefore, submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case there happens to be absence of any kind of illegality committed at the hands of petitioner. Also referred AIR 1991 page-69 to suggest that the case has been instituted in the year 2002 and more than nine years have elapsed and so continuance of instant proceeding will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) Further been submitted that from the allegation whatever been incorporated in the written report no offence under Section 409, 420, 477A, 120B of the I.P.C. is made out because of the fact neither there happens to be any sort of preparation of forged document nor anybody was cheated. When from perusal of the FIR no offence is made out then in that event no prosecution is permissible and for that relied upon STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs R K SRIVASTAVA, 1989 AIR(SC) 2222, MADHAVRAO JIWAJI RAO SCINDIA vs SAMBHAJIRAO CHADROJIRAO ANGRE, 1988 AIR(SC) 709, STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA, 1982 AIR(SC) 949, STATE OF HARYANA vs BHAJAN LAL, 1992 CrLJ 527(Bhajan Lal Case). So submitted that in any view of the matter the FIR is fit to be quashed so far it relates to petitioner.