Pyare Mohan Sahay 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.521 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA ===========================================================

1. Pyare Mohan Sahay Son of late Hari Nandan Prasad Sinha resident of MohallaWest Chandmari Road, Janta Path, P.s- Kankarbagh, 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. null null

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

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-02-2016 By way of present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 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, 479(A)/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 12(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the 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.

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.521 of 2015 dt.01-02-2016 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. 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. 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 first information report itself serious allegations of financial irregularities have been levelled against the petitioner.

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