LAWS(PAT)-2012-1-28

TRIPIT NARAIN SADA SON OF LATE KHOKHAI SADA R/O VILLAGE-TELHAR P S MAHISI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THRU THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARSA

Decided On January 24, 2012
TRIPIT NARAIN SADA SON OF LATE KHOKHAI SADA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR THRU THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR of Mahisi P.S. Case No. 2/2004 registered under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

(2.) In brevity, Mahisi P.S. Case No. 2/2004 was instituted on the basis of written report submitted by Reyaz Ahmad Khan, B.D.O., Mahisi against petitioner along with two others on the fact that during course of execution of Item No.3/94-95, there was malpractice at the hand of the then Mukhia(Petitioner) along with the then Panchayat Sewak, Durga Kant Jha and contractor, Deo Narayan Jha. The matter was inquired into at the direction of the learned District Magistrate who, being satisfied therewith directed for institution of the case which has accordingly, been complied with.

(3.) Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that institution of instant case happens to be politically motivated. Further submitted that the whole process adopted by the administration, as it appears has been taken at the behest of Kamal Prasad Singh, a person who had unsuccessfully challenged the candidature of petitioner for the Mukhia. Also submitted that some defect was bound to occur because of the fact that the execution work was completed in the year 1995 for which enquiry was so entrusted in the year 2003 after interval of eight years. Further, it has been submitted that the area is a flood prone zone and for any subsequent misfortune petitioner cannot be held responsible. That happens to be the reason behind that the Collector (Annexure-4) had taken into consideration the aforesaid event and consequent thereupon, constituted a Committee vide order dated 2 nd August 2003. However, later on, over influenced by the circumstances and without waiting for enquiry report as per Annexure-4, directed the then B.D.O for institution of the case which in the facts and circumstances appears to be mala fide and sheer abuse of process of the court. So it is fit case for quashing.