The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to interfere with an order directing issuance of processes under Sections 409 and 34 IPC, noting the insufficient timing of the petitioner's alleged involvement before the case.
Petitioner granted liberty to raise contentions at the stage of framing of charge if not yet framed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1462 of 2014
====================================================== Vidyanath Mishra .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 13-01-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhanjharpur in Lakhnour P.S. Case no. 14 of 2011 whereby the processes were directed to be issued on cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that Rs.10,50,000 was given to the Building Construction Committee of the Primary School, Lakhnour when the work to the tune of Rs. 8,03959 was done but no account for Rs. 2,46041 was submitted when the petitioner was directed by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Coordinator, Madhubani to deposit Rs. 2,46041.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the work was done in 2004 when the money was taken by the Block Education Extension Officer but he was not sent up for trial
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1462 of 2014 (2) dt.13-01-2014
2/2
and only the petitioner was chargesheeted. It is further submitted that the petitioner entered into Building Construction Committee in 2010. More over, the Block Education Officer vide letter dated 30.1.2010 reported to the District Superintendent of Education that the accounts of Rs.10,50,000 has already been given and thereafter the FIR was instituted.
Considering the nature of accusation, this court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.
This application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions at the stage of framing of charge if the charge has not been framed as yet.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Anil/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the order directing issuance of processes for offences under sections 409 and 34 IPC.
Whether the court should interfere in the present matter given the nature of the accusation.
Whether the petitioner should be given liberty to raise contentions at the stage of framing of charge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vidyanath Mishra
The State Of Bihar
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
