JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding taken against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Sri V. Ram, Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, as well as to quash the order dated 18.8.1981 passed by Sri B. Ram, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in G.R. case No. 319/1979 Harijan Police Station, Patna case No. 16 (4) 79 by which the petitioner has been called upon to take his trial under the aforesaid charges.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as made out in the petition of quashing is that a written report dated 30.3.1979 lodged by one Jagdish Mahto, Inspector of Police Harijan Cell, C.I.D Bihar, Patna formed the basis of the first information report and the section was registered against the petitioner vide case no as stated aforesaid. True copy of the said report is annexure 'I' to the said petition. A plain reading of annexure 'I' gives out the following facts, alleged against the petitioner for the purposes of proceeding against him.

(3.) According to the said annexure the petitioner, some time in the year 1957 -58 represented himself before the authorities of the Government Polytechnic Muzaffarpur that he belonged to scheduled caste (Dusadh) and on that basis submitted an application for admission and got admitted therein. He also took scholarship on the basis of his being a Harijan. However, he passed the Diploma course in August, 1959. The said annexure 'I' also disclosed that Dr. Sri B.B. Mozumdar Principal, Government Pelytechnic, Muzaffarpur had disclosed to the informant Sri Jagdish Mahton that in the year 1977 prior to the in vestigation of the matter by vigilence Officer, the petitioner had visited Muzaffarpur Polytechnic office continuously for four or five days and was found talking to the office staff, and it was discovered during investigation that certified copy of the caste -certificate of the petitioner was found missing from the file. However, the matter regarding the petitioner's caste was ascertained from the admission form of the petitioner where the latter had described his caste as a 'Harijan Dusadh. The said annexure 'I' also refers to statements of respective persons examined before the preliminary investigation who testified that the petitioner belonged to Sonar caste (which does not come under the category of scheduled caste). The petitioner has however, in support of his contention pleaded that he had been adopted at the age of fifteen by one Balo Paswan which was prior to his seeking admission in the Government Polytechnic, Muzaffarpnr but shortly after his being so adopted the said Balo Paswan was blessed with a son and the adoption of the petitioner revoked by Balo Paswan id the year 1959 and it was on that basis, as claimed by the petitioner, that he got himself admitted and got stipend also as scheduled caste. The petitioner has referred to several materials from the case -diary in support of his plea and has made endeavours to persuade this Court to refer to those materials for appreciating the submissions advanced in support of the plea of quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against him. I have myself given a careful look to the facts contained in annexure 'I' and allegations contained therein in its entirety to constitute offences said to have been committed by the petitioner, prior to his seeking admission, and thereafter at a time when the petitioner is said to have removed the certified copy of the caste -certificate from the office of the Polytechnic. In all caution, I would not like to give my opinion regarding the truth or otherwise of the materials referred to in the case diary for obvious reason that any observation might be misconstrued by the courts dealing with the petitioner's case. It is apparent that the police authority itself has not given any weight to those materials and submitted a report which is substantially in conformity with the allegations made in annexure 'I' upon which the court concerned has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and directed for his being proceeded against under those offences. The law is well settled that in order to succeed in a petition for quashing of a criminal prosecution, the accused has to show that the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The petitioner in this case seeks the indulgence of this Court to apply itself to the materials in the case -diary and to express its opinion regarding the truth or otherwise of the allegations by reference to those materials which speak both ways and may be interpreted either in favour or against the accused. I am afraid, I cannot accede to this prayer of the accused for the simple reason that by so doing, this Court itself would be transgressing the permissible limits within which it has to exercise its inherent power, and that would also tantamount to assuming the role of a trial court which is yet to begin. In my view the petitioner has not been successful in making out a case for quashing.