VIJOY KISHORE SAHAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Vigilance.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed the instant case for quashing the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by Sri Binay Kant Khan, the Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 409, 120B, 109, 423, 424 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Case No. 17 of 2000 against the Petitioner and also for quashing the entire Criminal Proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence, he had passed the order in quasi -judicial proceeding and the same if found to be incorrect or wrong, there is provision of appeal and revision against the said order and not for lodging the F.I.R. The Petitioner had passed the order on the basis of the Registered Sale Deeds and on the basis of the records and the report in respect of the possession under bona fide circumstances. There are no particular imputations against the present Petitioner of having acted in any manner to attract the Panel Provisions of I.P.C. or Prevention of Corruption Act. The other sections prescribed in the F.I.R. do not apply upon this Petitioner as he had not made any settlement far less any forged settlement, rather the case in the F.I.R. is that the settlement is made in favour of Mr. Hom and subsequently, Mr. Hom had made settlements. Thereafter, the others were the purchaser or the transferee of Mr. Hom. 2006(1) S.C.C. 294.