D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the order of cognizance dated 20.2.2002 which is presently pending in the Court of Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Dhanbad vide GR No. 2007 of 1992 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 337 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case was registered on the basis of a written report of the opposite party No. 2 at the police station. The allegations in the written report are that the informant was a Science Teacher in the DAV High School, Tasara (Pathardih) Dhanbad and he was authorised by the Head Master of the School to present at the Government Treasury Dhanbad, the bill for the amount of salary payable to the teachers of the School. He presented the bill at the Dhanbad Treasury by delivering the same to the preset petitioner who was then posted as an Assistant in the Government Treasury. It is alleged that after receiving the bill, the petitioner advised the informant to come on 7.5.1992 for taking back the bill after clearance by the Treasury Officer. The informant went to the Treasury office on 7.5.1992 and 8.5.1992 but on those dates, the petitioner was found on leave. It is further stated that on 11.5.2002, the informant along with the Head Master of the School came to the Treasury and on that date also, the petitioner was found on leave. However, on 14.5.1992, when the informant along with the Head Master visited the petitioner at the Treasury office and demanded return of the bill from the petitioner, they were asked by the petitioner to submit another bill, but later, he disclosed that the advice for payment of the bill amount was already forwarded to the State Bank of India vide Advice No. 3424, dated 2.5.1992. The informant thereafter came to the bank where he learnt that the total amount of the bill for Rs. 44,032/ -was already encashed under the forged signature of the informant. The informant alleges further that under pressure of the Head Master of the School and in view of the legal complications and to save his own service, he deposited the entire amount with the Head Master on 18.5.1992 and on such pressure, he had also executed some documents as per the dictates of the Head Master, the contents of which he does not remember. The informant has claimed that the head Master and the Head Master's his son along with the present petitioner had connived together and had dishonestly withdrawn the bill amount from the bank by forging informant's signatures. After investigation, the police submitted final report on 26.11.1992. However, on the basis of a protest petition filed by the informant the learned CJM directed the police to reinvestigate the case and pursuant to the order further investigation was conducted and charge -sheet was submitted after about ten years, on 10.2.1992 against the petitioner as well as against the Head Master and other accused persons on the basis of which the learned Court below by its order dated 20.2.2002 had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/467/468/34, IPC and issued summons to the accused persons, including the petitioner to face trial.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner along with certain Annexures stating therein that the informant had subsequently filed a Money Suit No. 4 of 1995 for a decree of the same amount against the Head Master of the School, the present petitioner and the officials of the State Bank of India with the same allegation that the bill amount was encashed from the bank under forged signatures of the informant. The suit was contested by the petitioner and the other defendants. One of the issues in the suit was whether the defendants including the petitioner had defalcated the money and whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same. Upon thorough discussion of the entire evidence adduced on the issue, the learned Subordinate Judge recorded his findings that the defendants had not defalcated the alleged amount and had dismissed the suit.;