Allowed

Ramanuj Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar

Patna HC20 Oct 2014CR. WJC/777/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the Patna High Court quashed an FIR alleging that the petitioner, a school principal, siphoned public funds by pursuing degrees during employment. The court held the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence and the FIR was filed with ulterior motive.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report against the petitioner is quashed and the petition is allowed.

Ramanuj Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal… — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.777 of 2013 (8) dt.20-10-2014

¶2

1/6

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.777 of 2013

¶4

====================================================== 1. Ramanuj Prasad S/O Mahendra Prasad Resident Of Village And P.O.Chowar, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya, Presently Residing At Qr. No.-C6, Old B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Patna-23, District- Patna .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Nikhil Kumar Singh S/O Not Known So-Called General Secretary, D.A.V. Public School, Teacher Welfare Association, Pushpa Palace, B. Area, Mithapur, Patna, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna .....Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. with M/S Prakash Kumar, Ranjit Sinha & Manoranjan Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, A.C. to S.C. I ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶5

8 20-10-2014 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This is a petition for quashing the first information report, being Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2013, lodged by Nikhil Kumar Singh, respondent no. 2, alleging therein that Ramanuj Prasad, son of Mahendra Prasad, petitioner, who is the Principal of D.A.V. Public School, Old B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800 023, and has been shown the employee of the said school since 1988 till date and paid salary for his tenure while in between he obtained his M.A. (in session 1989-91) in regular course from Magadh University. He has also obtained his Ph. D. degree during his working tenure (since 19.01.1988 till date) in D.A.V. Public School, Old B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800 023. it has, further, been alleged that in this school when he was pursuing his M.A. degree and Ph. D. in regular course, he was shown employee in paid salary from D.A.V. Public School, Old B.S.E.B.

¶6

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.777 of 2013 (8) dt.20-10-2014

¶7

2/6

¶8

Colony, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800 023, i.e., it is clear case of siphoning of fund of public money by way of paying salary for the same period made to the petitioner in connivance with the superior officials of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, erring officials of the Bihar State Electricity Board (Government of Bihar), the General Secretary D.A. College Management Committee, Chitragupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 as well as the Directors (DAV CMC), Regional Directors, Managers and Principals concerned for the said zone/schools of DAV. It has, further, been alleged that all the people involved in such cases siphoned the fund of public money have been promoted to upgraded posts in various capacity as Principal/In-Charge of various DAV Schools

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Principal of D.A.V. Public School, Old B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800 023, and it has been asserted that even accepting the allegation true on the face value of the allegation the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has completed M.A and Ph.D during the course of his work as Principal, D.A.V. Public School, Old B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800 023, which, itself, not make out an offence though it has been asserted that since allegation made, itself, does not make out a cognizance offence the police has no jurisdiction to lodge an first information report or to conduct any investigation. It has, further, been contended that the allegation is, itself, incorrect and asserted that the petitioner completed his M.A. and Ph.D. after taking due permission from the appropriate authority and has annexed Annexure 7, the letter,

¶10

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.777 of 2013 (8) dt.20-10-2014

¶11

3/6

¶12

dated 12.09.2012, by Dr. Jayant V. Kulkarni, Regional Director, DAV Public Schools, Bihar Zone-1, Arya Samaj Mandir Campus, New Bailey Road, Danapur, Patna, to the Officer-in-Charge, Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, and in paragraph 4 of the letter it has been mentioned that Dr. Ramanuj Prasad was allowed to do M.A. from local college which was situated at the door steps of the DAV Public School on the condition that he would work in both the shifts from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. and he agreed to do the same. It was done seeing his contributions to DAV institutions in Patna. He is local to the place and is capable of solving local problems. The school was running in two shifts and he worked in both the shifts as directed by DAV institution. He did his Ph.D and permission was granted by DAV CMC. He did his LL.B before joining DAV Public School so the allegations levelled by Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh are baseless. He does not know the situation and contributions of Dr. Ramanuj Prasad who has been instrumental in shaping the career of a large number of students and maintaining outstanding report in his confidential report. It has, further, been asserted that the informant has filed the first information report with ulterior motive with malafide intention to spit on face only to harass the petitioner and for personal grudge for the reason that the wife of the informant was a teacher in DAV Public School, Patliputra, Patna, and transferred to other place and his wife has earlier also field a case against the Management for her grievance in which writ petition filed being C.W.J.C. No. 10205 of 2012 in which she malafidely alleged against the administration for transferring her from one school to another, but, the same was dismissed on the ground inter alia that teacher of private school is an individual cause of action and can never have

¶13

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.777 of 2013 (8) dt.20-10-2014

¶14

4/6

¶15

a public law element to it. However, the case instituted under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code and it is asserted that the case has been filed with ulterior motive and vengeance. However, it is well settled that for quashing the first information report, the requirement as stated in A.I.R. 1992 S.C., 604 (State of Haryana & Ors. Vrs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors.) where it has been held the seven categories of the cases where the power under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court in the interest of justice or to secure the interest of justice. Out of seven categories, one is where the allegation has been made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at the face value and accepted true, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused and, further, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreak vengeance of the accused and with a view to spit him due to private and personal grudge.

¶16

However, the first information report lodged under sections 406 and 120B of the Penal Code, the allegation made is only to the effect that the petitioner has completed his M.A and Ph.D degree during the course of service as the Principal, D.A.V. Public School, Old B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna 800 023 from local college and has siphoned the money.

¶17

However, the informant’s wife was a teacher was transferred from one school to another for which she filed case before Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed and the order is

¶18

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.777 of 2013 (8) dt.20-10-2014

¶19

5/6

¶20

annexed as Annexure 3 and even the informant was dismissed for not joining the school and, hence, alleged that these facts proved by providing the order, which are documents of sterling quality to be believed. The assertion that the case has been filed with ulterior motive in view of the fact that the wife of the informant was transferred from one school to another and informant dismissed for not joining the school so the case has been filed with ulterior motive.

¶21

However, even accepting the allegation true on face value neither offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code nor an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code is made out nor any conspiracy has been apparent about any offence. The allegation that during the service tenure he has done his M.A. and Ph.D. courses, the Management may have the grievance and may have a civil consequence, but, it can not be said to have any criminal consequence and, more over, the fact that the petitioner is a teacher and in no fit of imagination he has done any crime or has got any criminal intent by doing the M.A. and Ph.D. course and Section 420 of the Penal Code does not make out as there is neither any inducement nor any deliberate criminal act and there is no dishonest misappropriation even taking the fact on the face value.

¶22

However, it is true that allegation does not make out an offence. However, I am conscious of the fact that questioning the first information report, the writ jurisdiction and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be exercised sparingly with consideration of entire conspicuous of the case to do exdebito justitiae.

¶23

However, taking into consideration the fact that

¶24

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.777 of 2013 (8) dt.20-10-2014

¶25

6/6

¶26

allegation made do not make out an offence, the administration of D.A.V. Authority has no rather has appreciation for the petitioner. However, there is reason for the informant to have ulterior motive to file the case. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the allegation made do not made out an offence, the occurrence, alleged, is of year 1989-91, too remote, it is apparent that the first information report has been lodged only to harass the petitioner with ulterior motive to take vengeance. Hence, allowing the prosecution to continue is only an abuse of the process of Court to demoralize the petitioner and no useful purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

¶27

Hence, the first information report against the petitioner is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed .

¶28

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶29

SA/-

¶30

U U T T

Ramanuj Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanuj Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Sah and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar Through Cbi, Patna

Mamta Devi Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department-cum-designated Authority, Bihar

Sonam Rani @ Bibi Sonam Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh Vs The Union Of India Through C.b.i. and Anr.

Ram Narayan Thakur and Anr. Vs The Union Of India Through C.b.i. and Anr.