R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the first information report of Special Case No. 59 of 2010 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010, instituted under Sections 161, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7/13 (1-d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ranchi-Kotwali P.S. Case No. 411 of 2010, was lodged against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner did receive Rs. 3-4 crore for executing the work relating to NREP-II, Ranchi and Khunti. Subsequently, Khunti P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010, was lodged against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner did receive Rs. 50 lakhs for constructing the Stadium at Torpa-Khunti but he did work worth Rs. 1.05 lakhs and rest of the amount, i.e. Rs. 48.95 lakhs remained unadjusted. In other words, the said amount was alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. On that fact, submission was advanced that when the same allegation was there in the Ranchi Kotwali P.S. Case No. 411 of 2010, which also includes the allegation relating to misappropriation of Rs. 50 lakhs which had been allegedly received by the petitioner for constructing the Stadium at Torpa-Khunti, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in Khunti P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010, on the same allegation in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a cases of "T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 181] " and "Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others [(2010) 12 SCC 254] ". Further, it was submitted that taking into account the said principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has already quashed the first information report of the aforesaid case in respect of another accused Vijay Kumar Rastogi in Cr.M.P. No. 1031 of 2012.
(3.) As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that earlier the case had been lodged by one of the accused being the informant in order to safeguard himself from being prosecuted and, thereby, the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, being actually aggrieved, cannot be stopped from launching prosecution against the accused persons, who have been found to have misappropriated a huge money. In such event, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases, referred to on behalf of the petitioner would not be applicable, rather the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi & Others [(2002) 1 SCC 714] ", "Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), [(1979) 2 SCC 322] " and also in the case of "Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others [(2004) 13 SCC 292] ", shall be applicable where it has been held that in all the cases principle laid down in "T.T.Antony " (supra) case would not be applicable. Further it was submitted that earlier this Court though quashed the first information report but aforesaid decisions had never been placed before the Court and, thereby, any decision made by this Court would not be binding.;