Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 441 of 2010 Sudhir Kumar Sinha ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance & Anr. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate ----- 11/30.08.2013 The grievance, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, is that on the same set of allegation earlier three cases had been lodged against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was Amin Inspector. All the three cases were lodged on the allegation that the petitioner did certain manipulation in the map by making cuttings and overwriting over the map. Since three cases had been lodged for the same set of allegation, a writ application bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 181 of 2008 was filed which was disposed of on 7.5.2010 whereby all three cases lodged against the petitioner were ordered to be amalgamated. Subsequent to that, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2010 was lodged on 16.9.2010 on the same set of allegation upon which aforesaid three cases had been lodged and, therefore, this application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of that vigilance case. It was further submitted that while this matter was pending, again one more case being Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 296 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code but the allegations are the same which are there in all four cases and, therefore, prayer has been made for quashing of the first information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2010 and also the first information report of Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 296 of 2011 in view of the ratio laid down in a case of T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 181.As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, by taking instruction from Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Dy.S.P., who is present in this Court, submits that it is true that four cases had been lodged by the district police, whereas the Vigilance has lodged the case as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 42 of 2010 but the district police has been contemplating to submit closure report before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on the ground that they are handing over the investigation of those four cases to the Vigilance and that would be done shortly within a fortnight. It was further submitted that on receiving the closure report and taking over the investigation of aforesaid four cases lodged by the district police, all the four cases would be amalgamated with the vigilance case so that only one case as vigilance case would be there. In view of the submission, the grievance, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that for same set of allegation the petitioner is being prosecuted in different five cases, does not survive. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of. (R.R. Prasad, J.) AKT