Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 482--jurisdiction of high court under--guidelines for quashing a proceeding at its threshold--misappropriation of huge amount--project allotted for construction already having been washed away in rain--petitioner-accused, an executive engineer, being a technical expert regarding construction work--did not take any step for getting work technically examined before damage being caused--they have not appeared as yet in court below, nor trial has started as yet--case still under investigation--criminal proceeding not mala fide, nor with an ulterior motive--allegations made in f.i.r. prima facie constituted an offence against accused-petitioners--no interference. - - some items like iron rods and other materials were not applied according to the estimate and, therefore, the construction of r. 482 dated 19.5.1997 in which it was found that due to heavy rain fall the said culvert (puja) was washed away and there is no allegation against the petitioners that the said culvert was not constructed as per estimate and as well as there is no technical defect in the construction of the said scheme no. radha krishna singh is in service for long and there was no bad remark against him and he is also on the verge of retirement. gumla as well as block development officer, basia already reveals about heavy rain fall at the relevant time and due to which the said damages caused and it was washed away. it is also submitted that the letter dated 12.10.1998 cannot be construed as sanction in terms of the provision of section 197 of the code of criminal procedure as well as the contents of the report giving rise to the first information report do not make out any case against the petitioner. 1998crilj1242 ,in which it was observed that when a magistrate on the basis of a complaint issued process for appearance of the accused on being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the accused appears before the magistrate and takes the plea that the offence alleged to have been committed by him was in the discharge of his official duty and further that he was not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government and consequently the court has no power to take cognizance except with the previous sanction of the government as required under sub-section (1) of section 197 of criminal procedure code the accused can produce relevant materials to establish the necessary ingredients for invoking section 197(1) of the code. splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at the stage of investigation. d.n. prasad, j.1. all the above-mentioned three cases including the criminal writ were heard together as they arisen out of the same f.i.r. and are being disposed of by this common order.2. both the criminal misc, cases above-mentioned have been filed by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them including the first information report being basia ps case no. 49/98 dated 18.11.1998 corresponding to g.r. case no. 662/98 under sections 420/406/418/120b of the indian penal code pending in the court of learned chief (judicial magistrate, gumla, whereas c.r.w.j.c. no. 44 of 2000(r) was filed by the petitioner praying therein for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or an order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and criminal prosecution relating to the same basia ps case no. 49/98.2-a. the short facts relating to the prosecution case is that one written report was submitted by the executive magistrate, gumla alleging therein that there had been an inspection by the sub-divisional officer, gumla and other officers of n.r.e.p., gumla and a joint report was submitted on 19.5.1997. it was alleged about damage to the construction in respect of as many as eight items of different projects due to technical defect in design and due to lack of proper technical and administrative supervision in terms of standard measurement and also due to use of sub-standard materials in such construction work by the officer concerned/petitioners, as a result of which the government has been put to a loss of rs. 25 lacs. it was also alleged that the concerned officers including the petitioners are mainly responsible for loss of the state exchequer due to deliberate negligence on their part. accordingly, f.i.r. was lodged.3. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state of bihar in cr. misc. no. 898 of 2000(r) claiming therein that the petitioner radha krishna singh was concerned with the scheme no. 2/93-94 and the said scheme was related to the construction of r.c.c. culvert over chutia nala. technical sanction of the scheme was also granted on 7.8.93. it is alleged that the petitioner being the executive engineer did not apply his mind for the verification of the work as also to whether the same has been done according to the estimate or not. before construction started, no objection was raised by the petitioner as the petitioners along with block development officer, basia and the junior engineer, basia along with other persons are mainly responsible to put great loss to the state. it is also claimed that the scheme no. 2/93-94 was estimated to cost of rs. 4,98,300/- and the said scheme was technically allowed on 13.8.1993. bill was also submitted by the junior engineer on 3.1.1994 which was counter signed by the petitioner on the same. all the works were done in a hasty manner. some items like iron rods and other materials were not applied according to the estimate and, therefore, the construction of r.c.c. culvert swept away and damages were caused due to rain. the petitioner being the executive engineer was expert in assessing the technique and as the sub-standard materials were used, the said culvert washed away in the rain and for which the petitioner is mainly responsible for the loss. thus, the petitions filed for quashing is not maintainable and it is fit to be dismissed.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the state.5. mr. a.k. sinha, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted before me that the petitioners have been falsely dragged in this case, as admittedly the block development officer, basia vide his letter dated 17.9.1998 submitted a report to the deputy commissioner, gumla with the report of rain fall during the year 1992-98 and due to heavy rain fall in july, 1996, the said culvert washed away and there was no fault on the part of the petitioners. the learned counsel also drew the attention of the court to the inquiry report submitted by the s.d.o., gumla to the deputy commissioner, gumla vide letter no. 482 dated 19.5.1997 in which it was found that due to heavy rain fall the said culvert (puja) was washed away and there is no allegation against the petitioners that the said culvert was not constructed as per estimate and as well as there is no technical defect in the construction of the said scheme no. 2/93. he further submitted that actually the block development officer was mainly responsible, who had distributed the amount after execution of the construction of the scheme and the petitioners were never informed by the b.d.o., basia about any defect in the said construction and most of the payments were made to the agent by the block development officer without taking any permission of the petitioners and only a meagre amount about rs. 4,300/- was paid to the agent after counter signing of the petitioner, namely radha krishna singh. it is also submitted that the petitioner. radha krishna singh is in service for long and there was no bad remark against him and he is also on the verge of retirement. the said culvert was damaged and washed away due to have rain for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible.6. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, namely, rajendra prasad also contended that he was connected with the project no. 2/93-94, project no. 5/95-96 and project no. 6 of 1995-96 for the construction of r.c.c. culvert, part-i over tukai to ninai road and construction of r.c.c. culvert part-11 over the said road and also the project no. 10/95-96 and the petitioner has been dragged falsely in this case as the block development officer, basia had already submitted a report showing rain fall during the period and due to heavy rain fall in july 1996, the said construction was washed away for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. there is nothing materials to show that the said construction was technically not up to mark. moreover, the s.d.o. had also submitted report after inspection admitting about heavy rain fall during the period and due to which the said culvert washed away.7. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner of cr. w.j.c. no. 44/2000(r) submitted that actually the whole allegation has been concocted afterthought at a belated stage in order to harass the petitioner as the report of the s.d.o. gumla as well as block development officer, basia already reveals about heavy rain fall at the relevant time and due to which the said damages caused and it was washed away. the learned counsel mainly confined his argument that no sanction as required under section 197, cr. p.c. has been taken against the petitioner prior to launching of prosecution which falsified the entire prosecution case. it is also submitted that the letter dated 12.10.1998 cannot be construed as sanction in terms of the provision of section 197 of the code of criminal procedure as well as the contents of the report giving rise to the first information report do not make out any case against the petitioner.the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of suresh kumar bhikamchand jain v. pandey ajay bhushan and ors. : 1998crilj1242 , in which it was observed that when a magistrate on the basis of a complaint issued process for appearance of the accused on being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the accused appears before the magistrate and takes the plea that the offence alleged to have been committed by him was in the discharge of his official duty and further that he was not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government and consequently the court has no power to take cognizance except with the previous sanction of the government as required under sub-section (1) of section 197 of criminal procedure code the accused can produce relevant materials to establish the necessary ingredients for invoking section 197(1) of the code.8. however, it is clear from the instant case that the accused/petitioners have not appeared as yet in the court below nor the trial has started as yet, as the case is still under investigation.9. on the other hand, the learned g.p.i., mr. m.s. anwar, submitted that the petitioners have misappropriated the huge amount allotted to them for construction of the project in question and the said project/construction has never been made in accordance with the stipulated scheme. it is further submitted that the said culvert (pulia) washed away due to rain as sub-standard materials were used by the petitioners in construction of the culverts. the inspection report of the s.d.o., gumla also indicates about the direct, involvement of the petitioners in misappropriating the amount by using substandard materials in the construction. all the officials concerned including the petitioners have misappropriated the huge amount of the state by conniving each other. it is also submitted that sanction was obtained for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and due to negligence on the part of the petitioners with regard to supervising the work of construction and due to use of sub-standard material, the r.c.c. culvert was damaged and swept away due to rain causing heavy loss to the state revenue. it is further argued that the quashing petition under section 482, cr.p.c. filed by the petitioner, chandradeo prasad being cr. misc. no. 9906/98(r) was already dismissed by an order dated 17.8.1999 and again this application has been tiled under article 227 of the constitution, which is without merit and substance and as such it is fit to be dismissed.the learned g.p.i., also relied upon the case reported in : 1991crilj1438 state of bihar v. p.p. sharma, wherein it was observed by the apex court in the said case that case diary is the complete record of the police investigation. it contains the total material in support or otherwise of the allegations. the sanctioning authority having taken the case diary into consideration before the grant of sanction it cannot be said that there was no application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.the learned g.p.i., also relied upon the case of rajesh bajaj v. state nct of delhi : 1999crilj1833 , in which it was observed by the apex court that it was not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at the stage of investigation. if factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceeding during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details.10. on perusal, it is apparent that huge amount has been misappropriated and the project which was allotted for construction has already been washed away in the rain. it is surprising that scheme no. 2/93-94 said to have been completed and the petitioner of cr. misc. no. 898 of 2000(r) was also the executive engineer, being the technical expert regarding the construction work, did not take any step for getting the work technically examined before the damage being caused.11. the power of the high court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482, cr.p.c. is also settled. a catena of decisions have been examined by the apex court in the case of state of haryano v. bhajan lal reported in : 1992crilj527 . the apex court have also laid down certain guidelines for exercising such powers for quashing a proceeding at its threshold, which are as follows:(1) where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.(2) where the allegation in the first information report and other materials, of any, accompanying the f.i.r. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation, by police officers under section 156(1) of the code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the code.(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the fir or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.(4) where the allegations in the f.i.r. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the code.(5) where the allegations made in the fir or complaint are so absured and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provisions in the code or the concerned act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal-grudge.12. it is also settled that extraordinary power under article 226 of the constitution or the inherent power for quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. manifestly the petitioner of cr. w.j.c. no. 44/2000(r) had already lost the battle earlier when his quashing petition was dismissed as back as on 17.8.99 but again this petition under article 226 of constitution has been filed by twisting and moulding his plea and that too are without substance.13. from the discussions and decisions referred to what emerges is that in the rarest of the rare cases, the extraordinary jurisdiction and power under article 226 of the constitution should be invoked and exercised. there is nothing material to show that the criminal proceeding started in the instant case is manifestly attended with mala fide or with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. in the instant case, the allegations made in the first information report prima fade constitutes the offence and make out the case against the accused/petitioner which cannot be interfered at this stage.14. from going through the above facts and circumstances, there appears prima facie case made out against the petitioners at this stage. thus, considering the whole facts and circumstances coupled with the legal position, i am of the view that there is no merit in all the three applications, which are, hereby, dismissed.

Judgment:

D.N. Prasad, J.

1. All the above-mentioned three cases including the Criminal Writ were heard together as they arisen out of the same F.I.R. and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Both the Criminal Misc, Cases above-mentioned have been filed by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them including the First Information Report being Basia PS Case No. 49/98 dated 18.11.1998 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 662/98 under Sections 420/406/418/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief (Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, whereas C.R.W.J.C. No. 44 of 2000(R) was filed by the petitioner praying therein for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or an order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and criminal prosecution relating to the same Basia PS Case No. 49/98.

2-A. The short facts relating to the prosecution case is that one written report was submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Gumla alleging therein that there had been an inspection by the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla and other officers of N.R.E.P., Gumla and a joint report was submitted on 19.5.1997. It was alleged about damage to the construction in respect of as many as eight items of different projects due to technical defect in design and due to lack of proper technical and administrative supervision in terms of standard measurement and also due to use of sub-standard materials in such construction work by the officer concerned/petitioners, as a result of which the Government has been put to a loss of Rs. 25 lacs. It was also alleged that the concerned officers including the petitioners are mainly responsible for loss of the State Exchequer due to deliberate negligence on their part. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar in Cr. Misc. No. 898 of 2000(R) claiming therein that the petitioner Radha Krishna Singh was concerned with the Scheme No. 2/93-94 and the said Scheme was related to the construction of R.C.C. culvert over Chutia Nala. Technical sanction of the scheme was also granted on 7.8.93. It is alleged that the petitioner being the Executive Engineer did not apply his mind for the verification of the work as also to whether the same has been done according to the estimate or not. Before construction started, no objection was raised by the petitioner as the petitioners along with Block Development Officer, Basia and the Junior Engineer, Basia along with other persons are mainly responsible to put great loss to the State. It is also claimed that the Scheme No. 2/93-94 was estimated to cost of Rs. 4,98,300/- and the said scheme was technically allowed on 13.8.1993. Bill was also submitted by the Junior Engineer on 3.1.1994 which was counter signed by the petitioner on the same. All the works were done in a hasty manner. Some items like iron rods and other materials were not applied according to the estimate and, therefore, the construction of R.C.C. culvert swept away and damages were caused due to rain. The petitioner being the Executive Engineer was expert in assessing the technique and as the sub-standard materials were used, the said Culvert washed away in the rain and for which the petitioner is mainly responsible for the loss. Thus, the petitions filed for quashing is not maintainable and it is fit to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

5. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, at the very outset, submitted before me that the petitioners have been falsely dragged in this case, as admittedly the Block Development Officer, Basia vide his letter dated 17.9.1998 submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla with the report of rain fall during the year 1992-98 and due to heavy rain fall in July, 1996, the said culvert washed away and there was no fault on the part of the petitioners. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of the Court to the Inquiry Report submitted by the S.D.O., Gumla to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla vide letter No. 482 dated 19.5.1997 in which it was found that due to heavy rain fall the said culvert (Puja) was washed away and there is no allegation against the petitioners that the said culvert was not constructed as per estimate and as well as there is no technical defect in the construction of the said Scheme No. 2/93. He further submitted that actually the Block Development Officer was mainly responsible, who had distributed the amount after execution of the construction of the Scheme and the petitioners were never informed by the B.D.O., Basia about any defect in the said construction and most of the payments were made to the Agent by the Block Development Officer without taking any permission of the petitioners and only a meagre amount about Rs. 4,300/- was paid to the Agent after counter signing of the petitioner, namely Radha Krishna Singh. It is also submitted that the petitioner. Radha Krishna Singh is in service for long and there was no bad remark against him and he is also on the verge of retirement. The said culvert was damaged and washed away due to have rain for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, namely, Rajendra Prasad also contended that he was connected with the Project No. 2/93-94, Project No. 5/95-96 and Project No. 6 of 1995-96 for the construction of R.C.C. Culvert, Part-I over Tukai to Ninai Road and construction of R.C.C. Culvert Part-11 over the said road and also the Project No. 10/95-96 and the petitioner has been dragged falsely in this case as the Block Development Officer, Basia had already submitted a report showing rain fall during the period and due to heavy rain fall in July 1996, the said construction was washed away for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. There is nothing materials to show that the said construction was technically not up to mark. Moreover, the S.D.O. had also submitted report after inspection admitting about heavy rain fall during the period and due to which the said culvert washed away.

7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 44/2000(R) submitted that actually the whole allegation has been concocted afterthought at a belated stage in order to harass the petitioner as the report of the S.D.O. Gumla as well as Block Development Officer, Basia already reveals about heavy rain fall at the relevant time and due to which the said damages caused and it was washed away. The learned Counsel mainly confined his argument that no sanction as required under Section 197, Cr. P.C. has been taken against the petitioner prior to launching of prosecution which falsified the entire prosecution case. It is also submitted that the letter dated 12.10.1998 cannot be construed as sanction in terms of the provision of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the contents of the report giving rise to the First Information Report do not make out any case against the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan and Ors. : 1998CriLJ1242 , in which it was observed that when a Magistrate on the basis of a complaint issued process for appearance of the accused on being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the accused appears before the Magistrate and takes the plea that the offence alleged to have been committed by him was in the discharge of his official duty and further that he was not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government and consequently the Court has no power to take cognizance except with the previous sanction of the Government as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused can produce relevant materials to establish the necessary ingredients for invoking Section 197(1) of the Code.

8. However, it is clear from the instant case that the accused/petitioners have not appeared as yet in the Court below nor the trial has started as yet, as the case is still under investigation.

9. On the other hand, the learned G.P.I., Mr. M.S. Anwar, submitted that the petitioners have misappropriated the huge amount allotted to them for construction of the Project in question and the said Project/construction has never been made in accordance with the stipulated scheme. It is further submitted that the said Culvert (Pulia) washed away due to rain as Sub-standard materials were used by the petitioners in construction of the culverts. The Inspection report of the S.D.O., Gumla also indicates about the direct, involvement of the petitioners in misappropriating the amount by using substandard materials in the construction. All the officials concerned including the petitioners have misappropriated the huge amount of the State by conniving each other. It is also submitted that sanction was obtained for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and due to negligence on the part of the petitioners with regard to supervising the work of construction and due to use of sub-standard material, the R.C.C. culvert was damaged and swept away due to rain causing heavy loss to the State revenue. It is further argued that the quashing petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, Chandradeo Prasad being Cr. Misc. No. 9906/98(R) was already dismissed by an order dated 17.8.1999 and again this application has been tiled under Article 227 of the Constitution, which is without merit and substance and as such it is fit to be dismissed.

The learned G.P.I., also relied upon the case reported in : 1991CriLJ1438 State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, wherein it was observed by the apex Court in the said case that Case diary is the complete record of the police investigation. It contains the total material in support or otherwise of the allegations. The sanctioning authority having taken the case diary into consideration before the grant of sanction it cannot be said that there was no application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.

The learned G.P.I., also relied upon the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi : 1999CriLJ1833 , in which it was observed by the apex Court that it was not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at the stage of investigation. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceeding during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details.

10. On perusal, it is apparent that huge amount has been misappropriated and the Project which was allotted for construction has already been washed away in the rain. It is surprising that Scheme No. 2/93-94 said to have been completed and the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 898 of 2000(R) was also the Executive Engineer, being the technical expert regarding the construction work, did not take any step for getting the work technically examined before the damage being caused.

11. The power of the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is also settled. A catena of decisions have been examined by the apex Court in the case of State of Haryano v. Bhajan Lal reported in : 1992CriLJ527 . The apex Court have also laid down certain guidelines for exercising such powers for quashing a proceeding at its threshold, which are as follows:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegation in the First Information Report and other materials, of any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation, by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absured and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal-grudge.

12. It is also settled that extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power for quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Manifestly the petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 44/2000(R) had already lost the battle earlier when his quashing petition was dismissed as back as on 17.8.99 but again this petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed by twisting and moulding his plea and that too are without substance.

13. From the discussions and decisions referred to what emerges is that in the rarest of the rare cases, the extraordinary jurisdiction and power under Article 226 of the Constitution should be invoked and exercised. There is nothing material to show that the criminal proceeding started in the instant case is manifestly attended with mala fide or with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In the instant case, the allegations made in the First Information Report prima fade constitutes the offence and make out the case against the accused/petitioner which cannot be interfered at this stage.

14. From going through the above facts and circumstances, there appears prima facie case made out against the petitioners at this stage. Thus, considering the whole facts and circumstances coupled with the legal position, I am of the view that there is no merit in all the three applications, which are, hereby, dismissed.