Judgment 1. This application is for quashing the entire prosecution of the petitioner who is facing prosecution in Ghosi (Hulasganj) P.S. Case No. 29 of 1988 dated 6-3-1988 for offence under Sections 307,324 and 201 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act as well as order dated 30-3-1989 by which cognizance for the aforesaid offences has been taken against the petitioner along with two others by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are that one Navin Kumar alias Purshottam Kaushik, resident of village Katauli, Police Station Hulasganj, district Jehanabad, made statement before A.S.I. of Hulasganj Police Station which was recorded as a Fard-beyan on 5-3-1988 at 10-30 p.m. I he allegations made therein are that on 5-3-1988 at about 5-30 p.m. the informant was at his house. In the meantime he heard halla and went on the roof of his house and saw that large number of persons were quarrelling amongst themselves with regard to cutting of the electric wire. While the said altercation was going on accused Ashok Kumar, who was armed with country made gun, fired towards the informant causing injury on his mouth. The informant came down from the roof and then saw that accused Bina Prasad was standing armed with rifle. On hulla Arun Kumar, brother of the informant, came and seeing the aforesaid occurrence fled away. Bhagwat Singh, Krishna Prasad and others had seen the occurrence. According to the informant the motive for the occurrence was an old enmity. 3. The Fardbeyan was forwarded to the Officer in charge of Ghosi Police Station where a police case was registered under Sections 307, 324 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act against Ashok Kumar and Bina Prasad. The police took up investigation. In course of investigation it appears that the Investigating Officer, as per his requisition forwarded the informant Navinkumar to Medical Officer, Hulasganj (within the district of Jehanabad), i.e., the petitioner on the same day. 4. The informant was examined by the petitioner who was then posted as Medical Officer, Hulasganj Sadar Hospital and he found the following injuries on the person of the informant : (i) One lacerated wound 1c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the upper part of forehead in the middle. 4. The informant was examined by the petitioner who was then posted as Medical Officer, Hulasganj Sadar Hospital and he found the following injuries on the person of the informant : (i) One lacerated wound 1c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the upper part of forehead in the middle. (ii) One lacerated injury 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the bridge of nose. (iii) One lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the chin on right side. Regarding the nature of the injuries it has been stated that injuries were simple and caused by hard blunt substance or strike against hard stony rough surface. The petitioner, thereafter, referred the informant to Sadar Hospital Gaya or P.M.C.H. for X-ray and report. Injury report issued by the petitioner is Annexure 5. Annexure 6 is the report of Doctor at Patna. The informant was examined and multiple injuries were found. On X-ray radio opaque shadow suggestive of pillet (gun shot) were also detected. The injury report issued by the Registrar, P.M.C.H. has been filed as Annexure 6. 5. After completing investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against this petitioner and other two accused persons named as Ashok Kumar and Bina Prasad. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of cognizance passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner for various offences is without foundation and there was no material against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate for passing that order of cognizance and consequently the prosecution of the petitioner in this case is without any material and without any basis. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he committed any act amounting to an offence. The petitioner in the capacity of the Medical Officer submitted injury report on the basis of the requisition made by the police officer. Apart from this there is nothing else against the petitioner to connect with the prosecution of this case. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner had tried to help the accused persons by suppressing the nature of the injury and thereby he may be liable under Section 201 of the Penal Code. So far as facts are concerned it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner had tried to help the accused persons by suppressing the nature of the injury and thereby he may be liable under Section 201 of the Penal Code. So far as facts are concerned it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State since from the conduct of this petitioner itself it is obvious that he did not make any effort to shield the accused persons from legal punishment in any manner because from Annexure 5 it would appear that this petitioner had himself referred the injured informant to Gaya Hospital or P.M.C.H. This conduct of the petitioner abundantly proves his innocence and good faith. Mens rea is the crux of the criminal case. 7. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is quite clear that there was no criminal intention on the part of the petitioner and whatever he did it was in good faith. Further I find from Annexure 7 itself that the informant was reexamined by the petitioner on 6-3-1988. In course of treatment during the cleaning and dressing of the infected wound metal like hard substances, one from each wound, were taken out by this petitioner which were preserved and were sent by him to the Investigating Officer. So, this conduct of the petitioner also indicates that he has no criminal intention at all. In these circumstances it will be abuse of the process of the Court if the prosecution of the petitioner is allowed to continue. 8. This application is, therefore, allowed and order dated 30-3-1989 as well as entire prosecution so far as this petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. So far as other accused persons are concerned the case will proceed in usual course. Petition allowed.