Sone Lal Sahni v. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Department Of Vigilance, Bihar And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.579 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA =========================================================== Sone Lal Sahni son of Late Dahaur Sahni, resident of West of Aprajeeta Apartment Agam Kuan Thana Road, P.O. - Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. - Agam Kuan, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner Department of Vigilance, Bihar.

2. The Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Investigation Bureau, Patna -CumInvestigating Officer of the present Case.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigating Bureau, Patna.

4. The Investigating Officer, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna.

5. Jai Prakash University, Chapra through its Registrar, District - Saran. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Law Officer, I/C Vigilance =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Vigilance and learned counsel for the Jai Prakash University, Chapra.

2. 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 Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 479A/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 12(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. It has been contended that by the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.579 of 2015 dt.02-02-2016 2/2 petitioner that though the petitioner is named in the first information report, till date no incriminating material has been collected by the investigating agency against him.

4. Learned counsel for the Vigilance has contended that the allegations made in the first information report are quite serious and investigation is still in progress.

5. Be that as it may, I have perused the allegations made in the first information report. The allegations do attract ingredients of a cognizable offence.

6. The investigation of a criminal case is confidential in nature. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that no incriminating material has been collected against him till date is misconceived. Moreover, in the FIR itself serious allegations of financial irregularities have been levelled against the petitioner.

7. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T