Kumar Jayant Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 41524 of 2015 ========================================================= Ganesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Muneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village - Ekdanga, P.S. Belchhi, District - Patna.

..... ......Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Block Development Officer, Block - Barh, District - Patna.. ..... ......Opposite Party ========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.. Matloob Rab, APP ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

03.09.2020.

Heard Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Matloob Rab, learned APP for the State.

This is an application seeking quashing of the F.I.R of Barh P.S. Case No. 269 of 2014 dated 17.07.2014 instituted for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 406 and 420(B) of the Indian Penal Code. This Court had called for a report of this case vide order dated 21.03.2018. Though the report has been received but it does not explain as to the status of the case. This Court, therefore, had asked Mr.

Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner to intimate this Court about the current status of the case.

Mr. Singh has informed today that the investigation is still pending for about six years.

The allegation in the First Information Report is limited to the extent that the petitioner in his capacity as Mukhiya had identified a lady as a beneficiary of B.P.L. even when such B.P.L. number was in the name of another person.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the work of identification is that of the B.D.O. and the lady who has been identified for being the recipient of the Indira Awas Scheme is not a fake person but a living one but in any view of the matter, considering the fact that a wrong B.P.L. number was used, I am not inclined to quash the First Information Report.

However, considering the fact that investigation has remained pending for six years by now, the same ought to be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order before the Investigating Officer.

Till the time the final report is submitted, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

This order has been passed in view of the fact that the investigation has remained pending for six years.

The application stands disposed of.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Sunil/- U T