ASHOK KUMAR PURBE @ ASHOK KUMAR PURVE, SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR PURBEY, RESIDENT OF A/3 ASHADEP APARTMENT AT JORAR, P.O. AND P.S.NAMKUM, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (C.A.V.) - Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of First Information Report dated 26.08.2011 along with entire criminal proceeding which has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.118 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.1467 of 2011.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant in this case, in short, is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 26.08.2011 against the petitioner at the instance of one Braj Bhushan Prasad, Para Teacher of upgraded Middle School Jolah Khap, Chhatarpur, District Palamau who had filed a written complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer, Chhatarpur, Palamau on 26.08.2011 and the same was forwarded to the Officer In-charge, Chhatarpur Police Station by Sub Divisional Officer, Chhatarpur for taking necessary action into the matter. The prosecution case relates to misappropriation of government fund in payment of honorarium of para teachers of Chhatarpur Block wherein it has been alleged that Ramashish Prasad, Block Education Extension Officer cum Coordinator, Block Resources Centre, Chhatarpur (ii) Shailesh Kumar Singh, Accountant (iii) Ajeet Kumar (iv) Abhay Kumar Singh, Para Teacher, Girls Middle School, Namudag all connived with each other in misappropriation of government fund relating to payment of honorarium to para teachers by making inflated payment to non Para Teacher to the tune of several lakhs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and at relevant point of time, he was posted as District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme Officer, Palamau and he being the head of the office of Elementary Education including Primary and Middle Schools within the District of Palamau was under a statutory obligation to disburse and suballot the funds received by him from the Head Office i.e. State Project Director, Ranchi under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme in the bank account of all the twelve blocks including Chhatarpur Block in the District of Palamau. It is further submitted that all the 12 Blocks were having bank accounts in the joint name of the respective Block Education Extension Officer and the Accountants and similarly in Chhatarpur Block, the Bank Account was in the name of Ramashish Prasad, Block Education Extension Officer and Shailesh Kumar Singh, the Accountant of Chhatarpur Block and it was the joint responsibility of the Block Education Extension Officer and the Accountant to make payment of honorarium to the genuine and working para teachers of the Block after physical verification of the para teachers concerned on the basis of school attendance register and other relevant records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner in the capacity of District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Palamau exercises his supervisory jurisdiction only and in no case, the petitioner had any official obligation for directly making payment to any of the para teachers and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, this petitioner had any role in forging of cheques or in making payment to fake persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had taken all necessary actions against guilty persons prior to lodging of F.I.R. and therefore there is no connivance on his part and as such no prima facie case is made out. He further submits that the petitioner has no connivance or role in misappropriation of funds and as such the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid submissions, the F.I.R. dated 26.08.2011, charge sheet dated 06.11.2015 and order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2015 along with the entire criminal proceeding should be quashed.