Patna High CourtCR. WJC/524/2015disposed

Ishwar Dhari Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-02-02Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.524 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- GAYA =========================================================== Ishwar Dhari Singh, Son of Late Ram Bhajan Mahto, Resident of village- Nimthu, Police Station- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya.

4. The District Education Officer, Gaya.

5. The District Education Programme Officer, Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan, Gaya.

6. The Block Education Officer, Manpur, Gaya.

7. The S.H.O. Mufassil Police Station, Manpur, Gaya.

8. The Investigating Officer, Mufassil Police Station, Manpur, Gaya. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. N. Sinha, GP-11 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-02-2016 By way of the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report of Gaya Mufassil P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation of defalcation of government money has been on the basis of erroneous facts. As a matter of fact, during his

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.524 of 2015 dt.02-02-2016 2 / 3 service period, an estimate of Rs. 8,70,000/- was sanctioned for the construction of the Utkramit Middle School, Manpur and, accordingly, by the first installment, the amount of Rs. 6,60,000/- was credited in the account of Vidyalay Shiksha Samiti, as the said amount is running in the name of Secretary of the Vidyalay Shiksha Samiti and the headmaster, the petitioner as Incharge headmaster of the aforesaid school was made as executing agent of the said construction of the building and he has completed work of the amount of Rs. 6,60,000/-, but he received Rs. 6,42,959/- as per measurement book. It is further contended that the second installment of Rs. 2,10,000/- has been credited in the account of Vidyalay Shiksha Samiti but the said amount could not be withdrawn due to non-functioning of the Secretary of the concerned Vidyalay Shiksha Samiti and the said amount Rs. 2,10,000/- including the amount of Rs. 17,041/- and its interest has been still lying in the account of the school and same has not been misappropriated.

It is further contended that the petitioner has retired on 31.07.2010 from his post and on the same day, he has handed over the charge to the senior teacher of the concerned school namely, Savitri Kumari in which the said amount of 2,10,000/- including the amount of Rs. 17,041/- has been shown as amount under the head

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.524 of 2015 dt.02-02-2016 3 / 3 of building construction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the informant of the case has instituted the FIR mechanically without looking into the accounts of the school, as a result of which, the petitioner, who is a retired headmaster of the government school, is facing humiliation and harassment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that in the FIR it has been alleged that the petitioner has defalcated Rs. 2,27,011/-. He had withdrawn Rs. 8,70,000/- and had completed work as per the measurement book to the tune of Rs. 6,42,959/- only. Despite his retirement, he has neither completed the work nor returned the amount.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present application in order to file a detailed representation before the investigating officer of the case so that the investigating officer may investigate the case from all possible angles including the defence taken by the petitioner. Leave is granted.

The application is disposed of.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T