Dismissed

Ravi Bhushan Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Vigilance Cell, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Patna HC9 Oct 2017CR. WJC/50/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging an FIR for criminal mischief and cheating involving a forged appointment marksheet, the High Court exercised criminal writ jurisdiction to dismiss the petitioner’s petition to quash the First Information Report as sufficient material existed. The Court directed the petitioner to raise substantive defenses during trial rather than at the quashing stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ application to quash the FIR is dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to raise his defense at the appropriate stage of investigation or trial.

Ravi Bhushan Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Vigilance Cell, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors. — Patna HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.50 of 2017

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

Ravi Bhushan Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan Kumar Yadav Son of Kanhai Lal Yadav Resident of Village-Sangrampur, P.S. Sonbarsha, District-Sitamarhi

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Director General, Vigilance Cell, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police , Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna

¶9

Sri Vidhyanand Pathak, the Inspector, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Regional Office, Muzaffarpur

¶10

The Superintendent of Police ,Sitamarhi.

¶11

The S.H.O. Sonbarsha Police Station, District-Sitamarhi

¶12

.... .... Respondents

¶13

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narayan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to A.A.G.-3.

¶15

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date: 09-10-2017

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The petitioner is accused in connection with Sonbarsha P.S.Case No.129 of 2016 registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the aforesaid F.I.R. on the ground that no offence for which F.I.R. has been registered is made out against the petitioner.

¶20

Allegation in the first information report

¶21

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.50 of 2017 dt.09-10-2017

¶22

¶23

is that the petitioner was appointed as teacher by producing a forged and fabricated marksheet. Though the petitioner had got only 500 marks, he produced marksheet of 685 total marks. Further allegation is that the petitioner in his application form also mentioned that he had obtained 685 marks. On verification of the certificate produced by the petitioner, the aforesaid forgery was detected and F.I.R. was lodged.

¶24

On the basis of the forged certificate, the petitioner got himself appointed knowing well that no candidate of the category of which the petitioner belonged having 500 or any marks nearby 500 was selected and appointed.

¶25

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act. The information was supplied that though in the application form 685 marks was mentioned by the petitioner but the genuine marksheet of 500 marks was attached with the application. Some one else might have attached forged marksheet.

¶26

The aforesaid disputed fact cannot be a ground to quash the F.I.R., that may be looked into during the investigation/trial of the case. The petitioner would be at

¶27

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.50 of 2017 dt.09-10-2017

¶28

¶29

liberty to raise his defence at the appropriate stage of the investigation or the trial. Since prima facie material disclosing offence is there, hence I am not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶30

The writ application stands dismissed.

¶31

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶32

Nitesh/-

¶33

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	11.10.2017
Transmission Date	11.10.2017

Ravi Bhushan Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Vigilance Cell, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Bhushan Kumar @ Ravi Bhushan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Vigilance Cell, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

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

Most. Parwati Devi Vs The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Ashok Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Excise Department and Ors.

Rajan Sah Vs The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Sheohar and Ors.

Md. Arman Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibit

Saimun Khatoon Vs Keshao Prasad and Ors.

Yugal Kishore Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise And Prohibition Department