Arun Charan. Vs. State of Bihar.

Arun Charan. vs State of Bihar.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Sep 24, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916205

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/916205
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Rakesh Kumar, J.
Decided On: Sep 24, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35575 OF 2001
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Markandey Katju ; Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.] - Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) 1908 - Section 151 - Saving of inherent powers of Court -- This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Civil revision No. 945 of 2002. While t...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arun Charan.

Advocate Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar.

Advocate Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B

Excerpt

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored......chief judicial magistrate, begusarai in barauni p.s. case no.13 of 1993. by the said order ,i.e. order dated 26.2.2000 the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under section 467, 468, 420 and 120 b of the indian penal code.2. short fact of the case is that an agreement was entered in between m/ s barauni tiles and the state bank of india, baranui fertilizer township branch, begusarai . as per the agreement, the payment of m/s barauni tiles for supply of tiles to the irrigation department of galudih division was required to be made through bank, but subsequently the executive engineer, minor distribution division galudih, ghatshila made direct payment of rs.6,39,307.00 to m/s barauni tiles and, as such, the bank had suffered a loss. on the basis of written report of the bank officer, an f.i.r. vide barauni p.s. case no. 13 of 1993 was registered against partners/proprietors of m/s barauni tiles ,i.e. five named accused persons and the executive engineer, minor distribution division galudih, ghatshila by his post.after registering f.i.r., police submitted chargesheet against all private persons including the petitioner.3. aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 7.8.2002. while admitting, it was directed that pending final hearing of this application, the interim order dated 9.7.2002 shall remain stayed. in this case by order dated 9.7.2002 while granting order of stay case diary was called for and the same has been received, which is lying with the record of the case.4. sri arvind kumar verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that in the present case , agreement was entered in between the parties on 26.4.1989 and the entire alleged payments were made by the executive engineer, minor distribution division galudih, ghatshila by the end of may,1990. the petitioner joined the post of executive engineer, minor distribution.....

Full Judgment

1. The sole petitioner, who was Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 26.2.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Barauni P.S. Case No.13 of 1993. By the said order ,i.e. order dated 26.2.2000 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 467, 468, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Short fact of the case is that an agreement was entered in between M/ S Barauni Tiles and the State Bank of India, Baranui Fertilizer Township Branch, Begusarai . As per the agreement, the payment of M/S Barauni Tiles for supply of Tiles to the Irrigation Department of Galudih Division was required to be made through Bank, but subsequently the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division Galudih, Ghatshila made direct payment of Rs.6,39,307.00 to M/S Barauni Tiles and, as such, the Bank had suffered a loss. On the basis of written report of the Bank Officer, an F.I.R. vide Barauni P.S. Case No. 13 of 1993 was registered against partners/proprietors of M/S Barauni Tiles ,i.e. five named accused persons and the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division Galudih, Ghatshila by his post.After registering F.I.R., police submitted chargesheet against all private persons including the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 7.8.2002. While admitting, it was directed that pending final hearing of this application, the interim order dated 9.7.2002 shall remain stayed. In this case by order dated 9.7.2002 while granting order of stay case diary was called for and the same has been received, which is lying with the record of the case.

4. Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that in the present case , agreement was entered in between the parties on 26.4.1989 and the entire alleged payments were made by the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division Galudih, Ghatshila by the end of May,1990. The petitioner joined the post of Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division Galudih, Ghatshila on 1.4.1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner was not at all in the scene, there was no occasion for the Investigating Officer to implicate him as an accused. The entire action was taken by the predecessor of the petitioner and since at the time of registering F.I.R., the petitioner was posted there as Executive Engineer, he was unnecessary made accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet by the Investigating Officer. On this ground alone, it has been submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner will amount to abuse of the process of the court.

5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State. She has thoroughly examined the case diary and has fairly admitted that the petitioner was never posted during the period, while offence was committed.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not at all posted at the relevant time, it would not be appropriate to allow the prosecution of the petitioner for an occurrence, which had never been committed by him, to further proceed. The Court is of the view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance dated 26.2.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Barauni P.S. Case No.13 of 1993 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2010 Same Parties Arun Charan. vs State of Bihar. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Rakesh Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal...

Criminal