Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.
(2.) This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding bearing Vigilance Dumka (A.C.B.) P.S. Case No.02 of 2017.
(3.) Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been instituted against the petitioner for the assets which are disproportionate to her unknown source of income during the check period from 1996 to February, 2013 to the tune of 37.85% over and above her known source of income worth Rs. 17,71,989/-. It is further submitted that this F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner to harass her with oblique motive. It is next submitted that there is no fresh allegation against the petitioner and for self-same allegation the F.I.R. vide Godda P.S. Case No.191 of 2014 has been registered. Drawing attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2001 6 SCC 181, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the self-same occurrence, the second F.I.R. is not maintainable and the FIR of this case, being the second F.I.R. for the self-same occurrence, hence, it is submitted that the said F.I.R. vide Dumka (A.C.B.) P.S. Case No.02 of 2017 be quashed. It is then submitted that the averments made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. It is also submitted that no offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. It is next submitted that the evaluation of the building and other properties of the petitioner has been exaggerated only to make out a case against the petitioner and there is also error on the part of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in calculating the income of the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner it was alleged that the petitioner has misused her position to make several financial irregularity and in this manner she illegally amassed disproportionate assets but the said charges could not be established against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has not considered the several incomes of the petitioner and the petitioner upon being dismissed from services in August, 2016 seized to be a public servant on 12th April, 2017 when the F.I.R. was lodged. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that for these reasons also the said F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding be quashed.;