2026:JHHC:4806 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (Cr) No. 87 of 2025 ----- Pawan Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Shanti Prasad Mandal, R/o Village-Vishal, P.O.-Barmasia, P.S.-Pirpainti, Dist.-Bhagalpur, State-Bihar … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Ms. Surbhi, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Navneet Toppy, AC to G.P.-1 ----- Oral Order 08 / Dated : 18. 02.2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No. 76 of 2006. 2. The petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Lawalaung at Chatra. 3. Deputy Commissioner on receiving complaint regarding illegal advances having been made to the beneficiaries of Indra Awas Yojna, constituted a committee comprising of the Executive Engineer, District Board, Chatra and the Block Development Officer, Simariya to enquire and submit report. 4. Illegal advances were found to have been made to different beneficiaries, resulting in embezzlement of Rs 1,60,000/- 5. Consequently, FIR was lodged by the Officer In-charge, District Rural Development Agency, Chatra, FIR against the Panchayat Sevak and the Block Development Officer. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, that there was no allegation of making any illegal advance against this petitioner, which will be apparent from the enquiry report, which is the basis of the FIR. In the said report, it has been noted that only Rs.5000/- as advance was made by this petitioner to one of the beneficiaries which was as per rule. Despite the favourable report, 2026:JHHC:4806 2 given in favour of the petitioner, FIR has been lodged as a mistake of fact. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been admitted in para-13 that only allegation against the petitioner was of advancing first installment of Rs.5000/- which was as per rule. Despite this, FIR has been lodged de hors the finding which constituted the basis for lodging the FIR. Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 02.02.2009 sent vide Memo No. 124 specifically stated that as per the enquiry report, there was no incriminating material against the petitioner. Despite this, FIR has been lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. 8. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Having considered the submissions advance on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, I do not find any averment either in the FIR, or in the enquiry report, or in the counter-affidavit regarding illegal advance having been made by this petitioner. As discussed above ₹5000, which had been advanced by him to one of the beneficiaries found to be as per rule. At the stage of quashing of FIR, law is settled that close scrutiny of material evidence cannot be entered into. However, there should be some allegation disclosing a cognizable offence against a person, for setting the criminal law into motion. So far, this petitioner is concerned, there is total absence of any allegation that he was involved in illegal advance made to any of the beneficiary. 10. Under the circumstance, it will be an abuse of the process of Court to permit the criminal proceeding against this petitioner. Accordingly, the First Information Report being Simariya P.S. Case No. 76 of 2006 is, therefore, quashed along with the subsequent criminal proceeding qua this petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra Uploaded on 19.02.2026