Rajendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3942 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -319 Year- 2014 Thana -MUFFASIL District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Nandan Singh, resident of villagePatya, P.S. Madanpur, District- Aurangabad, retired Incharge Head Master of Middle School, Yaree, Police Station-Muzaffasil, District- Aurangabad .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kr.Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-09-2016 Heard Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ramakant Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner, who is a retired Incharge Headmaster, has approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd , Aurangabad in Aurangabad Muffasil P.S. Case No.319 of 2014, G.R. No.2344 of 2014/ T.R. no.625 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 406, 408 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order, the learned Magistrate after submission of chargesheet has passed order of cognizance under Sections 406,408, 409 and 504 of the Indian

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3942 of 2016 (2) dt.02-09-2016 2/2 Penal Code and directed for issuance of process. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired and while his retiral dues were pending, the department has lodged the present case. The present F.I.R. has been lodged on the allegation that the petitioner has defalcated about Rs.40,199/- from the government exchequer. It was submitted that the petitioner is ready to forego the said amount from his retiral dues. It was submitted that in the petition filed for grant of anticipatory bail, this observation was given by a Bench of this Court. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed to quash the impugned order.

The Court is of the opinion that without any apparent error in the order impugned, there is no requirement for interference.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T