HAROLDKUJAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of (i) the first information report; (ii) the "charge-sheet and (iii) the order taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. A further prayer has also been made to restrain the concerned opposite parties from investigating into the case.

(2.) Before considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties the backgrounds of the case may be portrayed. On the basis of an F.I.R. filed on 16.4.88 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner, while posted as Ranger in the year, 1986-87, was required to distribute 20 metric tonnes of wheat to the labourers engaged in aforestation. Though the petitioner received the said amount of wheat but instead of distributing the whole to the labourers, he misappropriated 10 M.T. of wheat. Further allegation is that even after his retirement on 31.3.88 the petitioner obstructed in official duty by putting lock in the government office. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and by order dated 18.7.91 the Court below, after perusal of the records, took cognizance against the petitioner which is under challenge.

(3.) It is not disputed at the Bar that when the said offence was committed during the year, 1986-87, the petitioner was a gazetted public servant and as such was protected under the provisions as laid down in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The case of the petitioner in nut shell is that the informant, D.F.O. was biased against him inasmuch as the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court for payment of his salary and pension ana also challenging the departmental proceeding. The said writ-application was, however, not entertained. Further case of the" petitioner is that the again moved this Court by filing another writ application for payment of post-retirement benefits and when the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, failed to comply with the order and direction of this Court, the petitioner moved a contempt petition against him. The petitioner has alleged that knowing fully well that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner which was going on, is bound to fail, the concerned officers with mala fide intention, filed this F.I.R. even after his retirement. Some allegations have also been made against opposite parties 3 and 4 for demand of some money towards the distribution of the said wheats to the workers. As the petitioner refused to oblige those two opposite parties, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.