JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the charge-sheet submitted by the police station, G.R.P., Jodhpur in C.R. No. 81 /89 submitted on 12.12.1994 and the cognizance taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jodhpur for offences under sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 341 & 336 IPC and Sections 145 & 146 of the Railways Act and under section 3 of the Damages to the Public Properties Act r/w Section 149 IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. 3. The facts may be narrated in brief. On 30.8.1989 call was given by the opposition party for 'Bharat Band' at National level. It was followed throughout the country as well as at Jodhpur. So many persons actively participated in the demonstrations and large number of persons aggregated at the railway station, Jodhpur and declared that the train moving towards Delhi would not be allowed to move. The petitioner was a social and political worker ever since his young age and opposed the atrocities of ruling parties. He used to take part in processions, dharnas, bandhs, strikes etc. On the date of the incidence the crowd tried to stop the train while the administration tried to move it. There was struggle and some incidents happened. First Information Report No. 81/89 was registered by the SHO, G.R.P., Jodhpur mentioning that he along-with his staff moved from the police station vide report No. 1695 and returned vide report No, 1730 at 5.15 p.m. At about 3.00 p.m. about 250 persons shouting slogan collected at railway station and tried to stop 95 Down Jodhpur-Delhi mail. They were putting Hurdles on the sleepers and the rails while the police party was removing them and in this way the train moved slowly. It was also mentioned that the persons named in the FIR started stoning due to which certain police employees were injured and the glasses of the A.C. Coach of Delhi Mail were broken. The FIR mentions the names of all responsible personalities of Jodhpur including Damodar Bung, Rajendra Gehlot, Smt. Surya Kanta Vyas, Shakuntala Mehta, Bundu Khan and certain Pradhans, Advocates etc. On this information, a case was registered. Though the petitioner was an active worker but he was falsely implicated in this incident. The FIR mentions the names of all responsible personalities of Jodhpur including Damodar Bung, Rajendra Gehlot, Smt. Surya Kanta Vyas, Shakuntala Mehta, Bundu Khan and certain Pradhans, Advocates etc. On this information, a case was registered. Though the petitioner was an active worker but he was falsely implicated in this incident. Daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika published a news item on its front page dated 31.8.1989 together with a photograph of place of occurrence. Title of the photograph shows that it was snapped by one Ashok Prajapati and is of the main railway station, Jodhpur. The news item published in the news paper shows that the petitioner was present at the Rai-ka-bag railway station who was injured there, while the photograph snapped and published in Rajasthan Patrika is of Jodhpur railway station. It was not possible that the same person should be present at the same time at both places. When the case was registered, the petitioner moved a bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. which was granted by the learned Sessions Judge. In para No. 3 of the order, the learned Sessions Judge mentioned that from the case diary dated 10.9.1989 it was obvious that the petitioner was not at the place of incidence and, therefore, he was granted benefit of pre-arrest bail. After investigation, challan was submitted against 17 persons including the petitioner who appeared before the learned Magistrate and was granted bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he was not present at the time of incidence at Jodhpur railway station and that the photograph has been snapped by some other Ashok Prajapati as mentioned in the Rajasthan Patrika and not by the petitioner. He also submitted that once the police had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in this matter but later on for certain reasons he has been involved and charge-sheet has been filed against him. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitting the case diary of the case before me submitted that the petition should be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the case diary. I find from it that on 10.9.1989 the police came to the conclusion that certain persons including the petitioner were falsely named by certain persons while they were not present at the railway station. 6. I have gone through the case diary. I find from it that on 10.9.1989 the police came to the conclusion that certain persons including the petitioner were falsely named by certain persons while they were not present at the railway station. It may be pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was granted because of this entry in the diary. Any observation made while granting bail is not material. It is admitted position that the petitioner was never put for test identification. Counsel also submitted that there was another person named as Ashok Prajapati, photographer, who snapped the photographs of the police atrocities and that the petitioner has been wrongly challaned. The legal position is that it is in very exceptional cases that the order taking cognizance can be set aside under section 482 Cr.P.C. The following citations are relevant in this respect : State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) 61 & Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 . 7. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of Ashok Prajapat does appear in them. Of course, in the diary dated 10.9.1989 it was mentioned that certain persons gave the name of the petitioner falsely. But thereafter the statements of the witnesses have been recorded in whose statements the name of the petitioner appears. The petitioner's case is that there are two persons named as Ashok Prajapat, photographer, and Ashok Prajapat Advocate (petitioner). He submitted that instead of Ashok Prajapat photographer the present petitioner has been challaned. I am of the view that the order taking cognizance and proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) cannot be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has an opportunity to raise objections before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate about his identity who will give him full opportunity to hear and decide about his involvement.With these observations, this Misc. Petition stands dismissed.Petition disposed of. *******