Judgment Surya Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. This petition under •s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 355 of 1988 arising out of Dhanbad Police Station Case No. 87 of 1988, which stands transferred to the Court of Sessions at Asansole, as per order of Supreme Court passed in Cri. Petition No. 15/19 of 1989. 2. The petitioner Dr. Rabindra Kumar Choudhury was working in "Woodland Nursing Home" at Dhanbad. On 31st January, 1988, a patient was brought to him with an injury on his right thigh, at 10.30 p.m. The injured was admitted in the Nursing Home. His name was given as 'Ashok Kumar'. The injured give a history that he had a fall on some sharp object. The injury was described as through and through punctured wound. His wound was explored by enlarging the margins and necessary remedial measures were adopted at the said Nursing Home. 3. On 1st February, 1988 at about 10.30 a.m. a number of miscreants indulged a tiring in front of R.C.M.S. Office, Dhanbad, as a result thereof, number of persons sustained gun-shot injuries and some of them succumbed to the injuries. 4. Dhanbad Police Station Case No. 79-80 was registered against Suryadeo Singh and others. While investigating the said offence, the police came to know that the real name of patient who got himself admitted in the name of Ashok Kumar in the petitioner's Nursing Home was Jamil Khan and that he was a hired criminal. Jamil Khan was arrested from the petitioner's Nursing Home on 3rd February, 1988. As the prosecution story goes, the patient Jamil alias Ashok Kumar was hired by Suryadeo Singh, the main accused in the case, in order to shoot and kill S. K. Roy. The injured Ashok Kumar alias Jamil and other criminals were making preparations to achieve their object on 31st ,January, 1988. The injured sustained bullet injury on right leg, while testing a fire arm. He was, therefore, rushed to petitioner's Nursing Home by the brother of Suryadeo Singh and was got admitted. Though it was a bullet hit injury, yet the petitioner described it as having been caused by pointed object. By performing operation in the patient's right knee, the petitioner changed the form of injury in order to give it a shape of a punctured wound in order to make a valuable evidence disappear. Though it was a bullet hit injury, yet the petitioner described it as having been caused by pointed object. By performing operation in the patient's right knee, the petitioner changed the form of injury in order to give it a shape of a punctured wound in order to make a valuable evidence disappear. According to police, the petitioner Dr. R.K. Choudhury, did not inform the police inspite of the fact that there was every suspicion that the patient was involved in a crime. 5. The patient was produced before the Medical Board after his arrest at Patliputra. A radiological examination was done and a bullet was found on the right palvic region of Ashok Kumar alias Md. Jamil. 6. A charge-sheet under Ss. 326, 201, 202, 203, 109, 212 and 120-B of the IPC and also under s. 27• of the Arms Act was filed in the court by Dhanbad Police against the petitioner and others. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations made by the prosecution, even if taken to be true, do not make out an offence punishable under any of the sections enumerated in the charge-sheet. 8. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1952 SC 354 ) and Harishchandra Singh vs. State of Gujarat [ 1979 (4) SCC 502 ]. In Paluinder's case, it has been laid down by the apex court that the first requirement to establish a charge under s. 201 IPC is to prove that an offence had been committed and a mere suspicion that it might been committed is not sufficient. 9. Similarly in case of Harischandra Singh's (supra), the apex court has laid down that in a prosecution under s. 202 IPC., it is necessary for the prosecution to establish commission of main offence before making person liable under the section. The prosecution has to further establish that the accused had knowledge or had reason to believe that some offence had been committed and that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and third that the accused was legally bound to give such information. 10. The prosecution has to further establish that the accused had knowledge or had reason to believe that some offence had been committed and that the accused had intentionally omitted to give information respecting that offence and third that the accused was legally bound to give such information. 10. It therefore, follows that unless an offence has been committed or the fact of commission of such offence is known to the accused and the accused causes the evidence to disappear, he cannot be held guilty under s. 202 IPC. A person, if it comes to his knowledge that an offence has been committed, fails to give information to the police, he would be guilty under s. 202 IPC, but if no offence has been committed and simply because a person is brought in a suspicious circumstance and the accused fails to report the matter to the police his act would not be punishable either under s. 201 or s. 202 IPC. Pearson, J., in case of Abdul Kadir (ILR 3 All 279) has very succinctly laid down the law which is applicable to the circumstances of the present case thus:- "The terms used in the section 'knowing or having reason to believe' conclusively negative and preclude the view that its provisions are applicable in cases in which an offence has not been committed. For it is impossible for anyone to know or to have reason, or sufficient cause to believe that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed. A person may fancy that he knows or has reason to believe an offence to have been committed when it has not been committed, but he is mistaken in so fancying. He may, under the influence of such a mistake, remove something which he imagines to be evidence of the offence which he supposes to have been committed, and he may be morally blamable for so doing. But it is beyond the province of criminal legislation to punish a man for a delusion or even for an act which has not caused any actual harm to the public or any individual member of society." 11. It is an admitted position that on 31st January, 1988 no offence was committed and the real incident took place on the next day i.e. 1st February, 1988. It is an admitted position that on 31st January, 1988 no offence was committed and the real incident took place on the next day i.e. 1st February, 1988. Simply because the patient Ashok Kumar and his associates were making preparation to commit an offence of murder on 31st January, 1988 and if accidentally the bullet mis-fired and hurt the patient, an offence punishable under s. 326 IPC was not committed. It was accidental injury caused by the victim himself. It is also a well known proposition that preparation to commit murder is not punishable under the IPC or any other law. Only preparation to commit war against the State and preparation to commit dacoity are punishable offences. Hence even if the patient was making preparation to commit murder no offence was committed. Thus even if the prosecution story that the petitioner converted the injury sustained by the victim to look like a stab wound by performing operation is to be believed in toto, no offence punishable either s. 201 or s. 202 of the IPC is made out. 12. Similarly since no offence was committed and accordingly no information was given hence s. 203 IPC also is not attracted. The petitioner also cannot be charged under s. 326/34 IPC because it is not the prosecution case that some bodyelse had caused the gun-shot injury. 13. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the prosecution pending against the petitioner in G.R Case No: 355 of 1988 is hereby quashed and the petitioner R.K. Choudhury is discharged from the case. The prosecution shall however continue in respect of other accused persons. The stay is hereby vacated. Revisional application allowed. Proceedings against the petitioner quashed.