RAJENDRA MOCHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these six criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of different Police cases instituted mainly for offence under Sections 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 420, 471, 474 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE background in which the F.I.Rs. of Gardanibagh P.S. Case Nos. 211/06, 13/06, Madhepura P.S. Case No. 22 of 2006, Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006 and Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 12 of 2006 were instituted relates to recruitment of Amins in the Department of Revenue Land Reforms, Government of Bihar. There were several vacancies of Amin in the Muffasil Office due to which the measurement of land and other land related work in the Government Department were being affected. Requests were made before the Department of Revenue Land Reforms for appointment on the vacant post of Amin. The Land Revenue Department in order to maintain uniformity in the appointment, issued instruction to all concerned by Memo No. 354(4) dated 26.3.2004 fixing qualification for the post of Amin in the State of Bihar. The qualifications were that the candidates should have certificate of matriculation/equivalent examination, certificate of examination of Amanat training having no bar of experience. The appointment was to be based on competitive examination. The Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna was directed to hold the examination for which total marks was 200 out of which 100 marks was fixed for Amanat and rest 100 marks of general knowledge/ general studies. The Staff Selection Commission, Bihar on 11.9.2004 published advertisement no. 604 of 2004 in Hindi Daily dainik Aaz inviting applications for the post of Amin. In this advertisement on the basis of guidelines issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, the criteria for appointment to the post of Amin was fixed. However regarding the certificate relating to Amanat training the criteria was that the training certificate should be from any institution approved by the State Government. In pursuance of the advertisement several persons including the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 20884 of 2004 filled up their forms annexing the photocopies of their matriculation/equivalent certificate and also the certificate of Amanat training granted by the institution registered by the I.G. Registration. These institutions claimed to have given training of Amanat and also issued certificate to such training in favour of the candidates.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY accused persons named in the F.I.R. have come before this court for quashing of F.I. R. as well as entire criminal proceeding. Case of the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 20884 of 2006 who are successful candidates is that the criminal case has been instituted against them only to harass though they have not committed any offence. So far submission of testimonials of Amanat training by them is concerned do not make out any offence for the reason that the institutions are duly authorized by the statutory authorities. Their testimonials were duly scrutinized by the Staff Selection Commission prior to issuance of the admit cards and only after finding these certificates to be genuine they were allowed to appear in the examination and thereafter declared successful. If such testimonials are considered to be forged in that case there is no reason for instituting criminal cases only against the successful candidates because altogether 1700 persons appeared in the examination and all of them had submitted their testimonials relating to Amanat training issued from those very institutions. If submission of forged certificate as genuine is an offence in that case such offence has been committed by ail 1700 candidates. There cannot be pick and chose policy and discrimination in between the successful and unsuccessful candidates. This discrimination itself shows that the criminal cases have been instituted with malice, and for personal grudge. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners who are successful candidates that after allowing the petitioners to appear in the examination, issuing admit cards after thoroughly scrutinizing their testimonials as well as publishing their results, there was no reason for initiating criminal case against them at the instance of complaints filed by such persons, whose identity has not been ascertained.