2025:JHHC:33129 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2260 of 2024 Pramod Kumar Mishra, aged about 61 years S/O Ram Krishna Mishra, Resident of Village: Panjwara, P.O. Panjwara, P.S. Panjwara, Distt- Banka (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Special PP ------ 5/06.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 19.10.2011 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Amrapara P.S. Case No. 62/2006 & Vigilance Case No. 02/2007, corresponding to G.R Case No. 656/2006, registered for the alleged offences under sections 166/201/406/409/468/477A/120(B) of Indian Penal Code, U/S 7/8 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 13(D) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Cum special Judge (ACB), Dumka. 3. On the basis of written report of S.D.O., Pakur, said Amrapara P.S. Case No.62/2006 was registered alleging therein that the accused persons misappropriated the sale proceeds of 16,400 liters of Kerosene oil, which was allotted under the Public Distribution System for its distribution amongst the Paharias. It is alleged that the same was sold in the black market and the Kerosene oil was wrongly shown to be distributed in the name of the fictitious persons. 16,400 liters of 2025:JHHC:33129 2 Kerosene oil was sold at Rs.5,06,760/- and the sale proceeds were distributed amongst the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Panchayat Sevak and after completing the service tenure, superannuated in January, 2023. He then submits that the petitioner was the whistle blower and the petitioner has submitted the report to SDO Pakur, on the basis of which, the instant case was lodged by the SDO, Pakur. He then submits that in the FIR itself, it has been disclosed that the signature of the petitioner has been taken on force and threat and in spite of that, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. He then submits that the case of the co-accused namely Santosh Kumar Patel, which was subject matter before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2012, was quashed by order dated 02.08.2012 in favour of said Santosh Kumar Patel. He then submits that the case of the petitioner is on better footing and the petitioner happened to be the whistle blower and in view of that, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that all the above arguments were available with the petitioner in the trial itself and in view of that, the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds in entirety that the FIR was lodged by SDO, Pakur, in which it has been clearly stated that the signature of the petitioner has been taken 2025:JHHC:33129 3 on force and threat on the chalans and on the complaint made by the petitioner, who happened to be the Panchayat Sevak, the SDO, Pakur has lodged the FIR. It has been pointed out that the cognizance has been taken in the year 2011 and till that date, even the substance of the charge has not been explained to the petitioner. The co-accused’s case has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2012. Further which order is violated in light of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act is also not disclosed. In view of the above facts, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 528 of BNSS. 7. As such, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.10.2011, so far, the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. 8. This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 06.11.2025 R.Kumar