Allowed

Surya Nath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2016Cr.M.P./883/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It held that no material evidence existed against the petitioner, who was an Assistant Engineer, unlike the Junior Engineer against whom charges were already set aside.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008, including the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2011, was set aside.

Surya Nath Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P.No.- 883 of 2010

¶3

Surya Nath Singh

¶4

Son of Late N.N.Singh, resident of village- Kalyanpur, PO & PS- Suryapur, District- Rohtas (Bihar) …. …. Petitioners --Versus— State of Jharkhand …. Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

¶6

For the petitioner: Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.

¶7

----------- C.A.V.ON- 10.12.2015 PRONOUNCED ON- 14/01/2016

¶8

Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M.(P), Chaibasa.

¶9

The prosecution case as it appears from the written report of the Project Officer MESO area, Chakradharpur, in short, is that under the scheme of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, one check dam was to be repaired in the financial year 2006-07. For executing the work, one Dilip Kumar Nando was appointed as an agent. After completion of the work, payment was made to the labourers as per the entry made in the Muster Roll and Job Cards. Subsequently, when a complaint was received that some irregularities have been committed, Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, West Singbhum entrusted the matter to Deputy Development Commissioner to make inquiry. During inquiry, complain was made by several persons that in their Job Cards number of days, they worked for, has been recorded more than actual number of days, they worked for, and that they have been paid less wages than fixed by the Government and that it was the Meso officer, who without getting the Muster Roll countersigned by the Junior Engineer, passed an order for making payment. On such accusation, a case was lodged against the executing agent, members of Vigilance Committee as well as one Yukti Mehra, Meso officer as Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008 under Sections 467, 468, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The matter was taken up for investigation and during investigation, no material came showing the complicity of this petitioner in

¶11

¶12

the alleged offence as petitioner was then posted as Assistant Engineer in Meso Project and his duty was only confined to examine the quality of the construction work and the work done and in the report of the Enquiry Committee, the work was found to be good but subsequently, the chargesheet was submitted on 31.12.2010 against this petitioner and other accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance of offence was taken under Sections 467, 468, 409, 419 and 420 of I.P.C against this petitioner and other accused persons including Junior Engineer. Even in the charge sheet, no specific allegation was made against this petitioner and the only allegation against the Junior Engineer Siya Ram Sharan was that the said Junior Engineer did not sign over the Muster Roll.

¶13

Mr. Devesh Krishna learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry report relates to the irregularities being committed in the scheme of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in making less payment to labourers and those allegations have no connection with the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Assistant Engineer in Meso Office. It was also submitted that even if there was some allegation with regard to non-signing of Muster Roll but that was against the Junior Engineer and not against this petitioner and the cognizance of offence taken against the Junior Engineer has already been set aside by the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2014 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 31 of 2012. It was also submitted that there is specific allegation that for all the irregularities, the Meso Officer was responsible and without getting the Muster Roll signed by the Junior Engineer, the said Meso Officer made payment of the amount and thereby the court committed the irregularity in taking cognizance of the offence relating to forgery and cheating against the petitioner also. Though none of the ingredient responsible to constitute the offence of forgery and cheating are against the petitioner and the court below without applying its judicial mind in a mechanical manner passed the order impugned.

¶14

It appears from the record that even after providing several opportunities to the learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, however, learned A.P.P. submitted that earlier in the case filed at the instance of Junior Engineer bearing Cr.M.P. no. 31 of 2012, a counter affidavit was filed with the plea

¶15

¶16

that the said Junior Engineer had not signed over Muster Roll. Learned A.P.P. fairly submitted that as per the scheme of NREGA, the duty of the Junior Engineer was only to prepare the bill in accordance with the entry made and there was no allegation that the said Junior Engineer did any wrong in the Measurement Book and there was neither any other allegation against the Junior Engineer nor any specific allegation against this petitioner.

¶17

I have gone through enquiry report and other materials available on record and I find that there is absolutely no allegation or even whisper against this petitioner of doing any wrong and even if there is some allegation of not signing over the Muster Roll that is against the Junior Engineer and the cognizance of offence taken against the said Junior Engineer Siya Ram Sharan has already been set aside by another bench of this Court. Obviously, there is no legal evidence on record against this petitioner showing commission of any offence under which cognizance has been taken.

¶18

In view of the discussions made above, the entire criminal proceeding of Chakradharpur P.S. Case no. 77 of 2008 including the order dated 21.02.2011 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 467, 468, 409, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is, hereby, set aside.

¶19

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is, hereby, allowed.

¶20

(R.N. Verma, J.)

¶21

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 14^th January, 2016 Ritesh/N.A.F.R.

Surya Nath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Nath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Shri Surendra Prasad And Anr.

Abdul Monaf Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tinku Singh Alias Arbind Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Basant Alias Bashant Harlalka Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Anil Sahu And Ors. Vs Parasnath Dubey

Hakim Mian Alias Hakim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.