CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1217 of 2001 PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. RESPONDENT: MD. KHALIQUE AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/11/2001 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 Supp(5) SCR 355
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. Lave granted.
In this appeal by special leave the appellants have assailed the judgment
dated December 09, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in
CRWJC No. 243 of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the
investigation of a case, which was registered under Sections 419, 467, 420
and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report was
filed against eight accused out of which six were Revenue Officers and two
were private persons. Two private persons filed a writ petition before the
High Court and the High Court by the impugned order quashed the entire
investi-gation ignoring the fact that there were six government officials.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows :
The Jamindari of ex-intermediary viz. Raghu Mahto vested in the State
Government in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1955.
It was alleged that the Government had to submit official assessment of the
asset, which was made without proper jurisdiction by the six officers of
the Government in collusion with the respondents with the malafide
intention of their vested interest. Documents were forged while preparing
the annual in-come of the ex-intermediary. On these allegations, the FIR
was lodged in the police station. The High Court quashed the investigation
inter alia holding that there was no specific allegation and overt act
alleged against the writ petition-ers except that in collusion with the
officials of the department the excess amount was withdrawn. According to
the High Court no excess amount was paid in view of the earlier judgment of
the High Court in a writ petition.
Law is well settled regarding interference by the High Court with an
investigation of a case. In the leading case of this Court in State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335, this Court
by way of illustration stated seven categories of cases where the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482
Cr. P.C. can be exer-cised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Out of
seven categories two categories are relevant for our present purpose viz.:
“(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 allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.”
In the FIR there are categorical allegations of forgery of the assessment
order of compensation payable under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1955 and
also allegations of fraud played while verifying the interest of the
Jamindari in paragraph (d) there is a specific allegation of conspiracy
against two writ petitioners, which is quoted below :
“It also appears that the entire proceedings of the conspiracy of said
misappropriation has been done by Ex-landlord late Raghu Mahto’s son Satya
Narayan Mahto. Power of Attorney holder Shri Mohd. Khalif in connivance
with the concerned officer. In this way interme-diary was helped in illegal
manner by which State money was embez-zled.”
In view of the specific allegations made in the FIR it cannot be said that
no prima facie case was made out against the accused persons including the
writ petitioners and that it did not disclose a cognizable offence.
In Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) this Court has also held that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with the
circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. The present
case is not rarest of the rare case.
In view of the settled legal position and as offences have been disclosed
in the FIR, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the
investigation and should have permitted police to complete it. We,
accordingly, hold that the High Court has committed a grave error in
quashing the entire proceeding and ought not to have thwart the
prosecution.
Only respondent No. 2, namely, Satya Narain Mahto has resisted the appeal.
Learned counsel has pleaded that respondent No. 2 may be granted pre-arrest
bail and has assured that he would co-operate with the investigation. We
accept the submission of the learned counsel. We therefore, direct that, if
arrested, respondent No. 2 shall be released on furnishing a bond with
adequate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
authority. He shall make himself available for interrogation, whenever
necessary.
Appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the
High Court.