Dismissed¶37

Mira Devi v. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Vigilance Dep., Gov. of Bihar at Patna

Patna HC15 Mar 2024CR. WJC/266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused at threshold; premature quashing; Article 226 certiorari; forged matriculation mark sheet (462/700 vs 288 marks); contractual teacher (Shiksha Mitra) appointment of 2004; Shiksha Mitra Niyukti Niyamawali; Vigilance Investigation Bureau verification of teachers appointed 2006-2015; Paharpur P.S. Case No.367 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022; Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) IPC; counter affidavit by DG, VIB; writ dismissed on contest with liberty reserved; East Champaran; CR. WJC No.266 of 2024, decided 15-03-2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief; writ petition dismissed on contest, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to agitate the same point at an appropriate stage after consideration of the documents by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. ¶37

Mira Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. (Paharpur P.S. Case No.367 of 2022) and the criminal proceeding arising from it, alleging that the petitioner secured appointment as a contractual teacher on a forged matriculation mark sheet, ought to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage.

¶36

Court's answer

This is not the right time to quash the FIR against the petitioner, since the Court cannot at this stage ascertain whether the petitioner submitted a forged document at appointment or the document was forged by someone else; the documents of both sides are yet to be looked into, verified and examined.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the same point at an appropriate stage after consideration of the documents by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) dismissed a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari for quashing of F.I.R. being Paharpur P.S. Case No.367 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) IPC and the criminal proceeding initiated thereon. The petitioner, appointed a contractual teacher in 2004, was alleged by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau to have obtained the job by showing a forged matriculation mark sheet of 462 marks out of 700, whereas the merit list and RTI-obtained records indicated she had received 288 marks and submitted the correct mark sheet at appointment; the respondent no.2 relied on the petitioner's own declaration of 462/700 marks. Holding that it could not, at this stage, ascertain whether the petitioner submitted a forged document or the document was forged by some other person, and that the documents of both sides required verification and examination, the Court held this was not the right time to quash the FIR and dismissed the writ petition on contest, reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate the same point at an appropriate stage after consideration of the documents by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.266 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2022 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Mira Devi W/o Ajay Yadav R/o vill - Nirpur, Panchayat - Kamal Pipra, P.s. - Paharpur, Distt. - East Champaran

¶5

.. ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Vigilance Dep., Gov. of Bihar at Patna Bihar

¶8

The Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna Bihar

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Muzaffarpur Range at Muzaffarpur Bihar

¶10

The Investigation officer of Paharpur P.S. Case No. 367/2022, Paharpur Police Station, East Champar Bihar

¶11

Kanhaiyalal Son of Late Rambabu Ram Posted as Dy. S.P. Vigilance Investigation Bureau, R/o vill - Ladaura, P.S. - Kudhani, Distt. - Muzaffarpur

¶12

The District Program Officer (Establishment) East Champaran at Motihari Bihar

¶13

The Block Development Officer Paharpur, East Champaran Motihari Bihar

¶14

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Kamal Pipra, Block - Paharpur, Distt. - East Chamapran, Bihar

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶19

2 15-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶20

Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance Department.

¶21

The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Paharpur P.S. Case No.367 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022 under Sections, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and criminal proceeding

¶22

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.266 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 2/5

¶23

initiated on the basis of the said police case as well as other consequential reliefs.

¶24

It is not in dispute that sometimes in the year 2003 contractual teachers were appointed in the State of Bihar having eleven months contract with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1500/- per month. During 2005, the said Scheme was modified. Previously, the said contractual teachers were appointed by Pradhan and Gram Sewak on their recommendations. From 2005 the Block Development Officer and the Executive Officer of the Panchayat were included in the recommending committee.

¶25

It is also not in dispute that monthly remuneration was increased from Rs.1500/- to Rs.4000/- and the length of service was increased upto 60 years. Subsequently, upon a writ petition filed before the Court presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, huge anomalies were found and therefore, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to direct that the testimonials, academic qualifications, mark sheets etc. of the teachers appointed during the period between 2006 and 2015 shall be examined by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar.

¶26

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2004 as a women candidate. His name was appearing in Serial No.49 of the merit list. It is

¶27

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.266 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 3/5

¶28

also pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner that there was a definite rules and regulations under the name and style of “Shiksha Mitra Niyukti Niyamawali” wherein it is clearly stipulated that under Panchayat Region, if eligible women candidate is not available, than, matriculation passed candidate is required for appointment by taking permission of the District Magistrate on the condition that they have to qualify their Intermediate or equivalent qualification withing a period of three years of their appointment. The District Magistrate has to propose the State Government on giving such permission and the State Government has to take flexibility/relaxation in accordance with Rule 5 of National Teacher Education Council, 2001.

¶29

Under the said scheme, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2004. There was no order with regard to verification or examination of the academic testimonial of the petitioner passed by this Court. However, the petitioner’s testimonials and academic qualification was verified and it was brought to the notice of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau that the petitioner allegedly obtained the said job by showing a false and forged mark sheet to the effect that out of 700 she secured 462 marks.

¶30

The learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner

¶31

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.266 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 4/5

¶32

refers to the merit list which clearly shows that in the merit list, it is recorded that the petitioner received 288 marks during matriculation examination. The petitioner obtained her records from the Block Office through RTI and it was also found that the petitioner submitted the correct mark sheet at the time of her appointment. Subsequently, in order to deprive the petitioner from her job, a false certificate in her name was used saying that the petitioner submitted a mark sheet of 462 marks out of 700 marks in the matriculation certificate.

¶33

Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the entire criminal proceeding is based on certain forged and frivolous document. The petitioner never committed any act of cheating or forgery. However, she is the victim of the circumstances.

¶34

The respondent no.2 has filed a counter affidavit against the above mentioned writ petition. He takes me to Annexure-A of the writ petition where the petitioner herself made a declaration that he got 462 marks out of 700 marks in the examination conducted by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. He also refers to another document at Page-23 of the counter affidavit which is certified by the petitioner herself where her marks is stated to be 462 but she actually got 288 marks in the said examination.

¶35

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.266 of 2024(2) dt.15-03-2024 5/5

¶36

This Court at this stage is not in a position to ascertain as to whether the complainant submitted forged document at the time of her appointment as a teacher or the document was forged by some other person and the petitioner really submitted the true document at the time of getting an appointment as contractual teacher. In order to get the answer to this question, the documents filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 in the counter affidavit are to be looked into and verified and examined.

¶37

In view of such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not the right time to quash the FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed on contest.

¶38

However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate the same point at an appropriate stage after consideration of the documents by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.

¶39

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶40

mdrashid/-

¶41

U T

Mira Devi v. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Vigilance Dep., Gov. of Bihar at Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mira Devi v. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Vigilance Dep., Gov. of Bihar at Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shashi Kant Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Nitesh Kumar Pandit Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Md. Munazir Alam @ Md. Munazir Siddiquee @ Munazir Siddiquee Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar @ Anil Saw Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.