RAJ GIRIH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have asked for quashing of Mohania P.S. Case No. 350 of 2012 registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the allegation whatsoever been incorporated in the First Information Report happens to be palpably false as well as ill - motivated on account of being influenced by local politics. It has been submitted that so far status of both the petitioners are concerned, it is admitted one. Entrustment of Government money to petitioner no.2, Hira Ram a Panchayat Sevak having been identified as an agent to execute the work so entrusted with assistance of petitioner no.1, Rajgrih Prasad who was the then Mukhiya of Usri Panchayat is admitted. Then it has been submitted that petitioner no.2, Hira Ram superannuated on 30.06.2011, and on account thereof petitioner had insisted for early payment of his retiral benefit. At that very moment, it was requested at the end of petitioner no.2 that either he be directed to deposit the rest amount which was falling due at his end or the aforesaid amount be adjusted with the post retiral benefit which the petitioner was entitled for. The local authority did not pay heed foit and on account thereof, petitioner has to run pillar to post. Having been annoyed with the step taken by the petitioner no.2, Hira Ram, the local authorities have filed certificate case against petitioner no.2, Hira Ram wherein also he had stated the same fact and after considering the prayer of the petitioner, the certificate officer had directed and on account thereof, a sum of Rs.1,94,241/ - was deducted from post retiral benefit of the petitioner, although the aforesaid amount happens to be wrong and for that petitioner no.2, Hira Ram had filed CWJC No.10161 of 2012 which has been disposed of directing the Certificate Officer to decide the issue. Then it has been submitted that the local administrative officer did not approve the grounds of objection raised before the Certificate Officer by the petitioner, and that happens to be reason behind institution of instant case even knowing full well that amount had already been realized.

(3.) IT has been agrued further that neither the amount was misappropriated nor the petitioner had ever controverted the same rather on account of indifferent attitude of the local administration he has been victimized. Furthermore, it has been submitted that before institution of instant case the amount so claimed had already been paid, therefore no lis survived on the date of registration of case and as such the prosecution suffers from biasness vindictiveness. Furthermore, on account of payment of the due amount neither misappropriation survives nor for that purpose creation of forged and fabricated document could be entertained. So submitted that the instant prosecution happens to be bad.