Ravi Nath Verma,J. - (1.) Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), the sole petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding relating to Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. case No. 202 of 1996, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa.
(2.) The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of the informant-the Circle Officer, Manoharpur, West Singhbhum, the aforesaid case was instituted on 27.07.1996 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420/34, 109 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that after receiving an allegation petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum directed the District Welfare Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to make an enquiry in respect of the allegations made by one Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh in his letter dated 04.02.1992 and on the basis of the report submitted by the District Welfare Officer after enquiry, it was transpired that St. Augustin College, Manoharpur had received fund from Government in respect of tuition fee, examination fee and other fess for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students and for the same period, the authority also received grant from Welfare Department in respect of tuition fees payable to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students. Thus, double funds were received by the College. By letter dated 26.08.1994, the said Enquiry Officer directed the Principal of the college to refund the tuition fees realised from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students within a month and the balance amount, which could be refunded to those students, should be deposited/returned to Welfare Department. After the said direction, the Principal of the college issued notice to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students to receive the amount of the period 06.06.1994 to 30.06.1994. It is alleged that the Principal had received those amounts from two different sources in violation of the rules, which is a serious offence and the college maintained 2-3 types of account books for the said purpose and without the approval of the state government, the Principal of the said college by cheating received Rs.1,37,840/-. The Enquiry Officer found the involvement of this petitioner, who was the Principal during the relevant period, and the involvement of five other persons namely Sunita Topno-the Acting Principal, Dr. Anuj Kumar Dhan-the Principal from 1987 to 1992, John Bhuiyan-Acting Principal, Mojesh Sukumar Das-the Cashier and Walter Bara-another Cashier besides the members of Governing Body in the alleged offence and responsible for the misappropriation and defalcation of the amount. In the F.I.R., several documents were annexed showing allegation of cheating and misappropriation of money.
(3.) It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against this petitioner and other accused persons, thereafter, the court took cognizance of the offence. At the stage of framing of charge, petitions under Section 239 of the Code were filed by the accused persons for their discharge but the court below finding prima facie case and grave suspicion rejected their prayer for discharge. It further appears that this petitioner had earlier filed one W.P.(Cr.) no. 44 of 2005 against the order 04.01.2005 by which the court below refused to discharge the petitioner and the said W.P.(Cr.) was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2005 with direction to the court concerned to supply the copy of police paper and other documents and thereafter proceed for framing of the charge in accordance with law. The petitioner and other accused persons again filed petitions under Section 239 of the Code in the court below praying therein that though the photostat copy of the case diary has been supplied to the petitioner showing it as a police paper but copies of documents received from District Welfare Officer, Chaibasa has not been furnished and prayed for their discharge. The court below after hearing the parties passed a common order dated 27.06.2005 rejecting the petitions filed for their discharge under Section 239 of the Code and directed the petitioner and other accused persons to be physically present before the court for framing of charge.;