Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This is an unique example of thoughtless atrocity perpetrated by the police and how the simpleton gentry is forced to suffer in the cauldron of police egomania reminiscent of the age of the Satar.. 3. The petitioners family runs a jewellery business in village Laukahi within the district of Madhubani. On 5.9.2005 the petitioner proceeded to Patna to purchase silver ornaments and having purchased the same weighing 12.652 kgs. worth Rs. 92,004/- inclusive of taxes againsi a proper bill from Dilip Jewellers. Patna for which he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, he boarded the bus for returning home. On reaching Sakri in the wee hours of the following morning and while waiting for another bus a police constable approached him and wanted to know about the contents of his bag to which the petitioner informed that it contained silver ornaments whereupon the policeman wanted to have a look at it. The petitioner said that he would show the same only at the police station which was situated just in front of the bus stand. At the police station the petitioner showed the ornaments to the Officer Incharge who asked for the bill of purchase which was also shown to him and having verified the same on telephone from Dilip Jewellers, Patna the petitioner was kept detained at the police station and he was asked to grease their palms for release of himself and the ornaments. The petitioner informed that he had only Rs. 2300/- with him but the Officer Incharge, not being satisfied therewith, directed him to ring up his father. He was taken to a public call centre by a police constable wherefrom he rang his father who immediately came to Sakri Police Station at about 11 A.M. But the said Officer Incharge kept him waiting and called him at 3 P.M. and asked him to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for release of the petitioner and ornaments to which his father refused as the ornaments had been purchased genuinely. His father was thrown out of the police station premises and the petitioner and ornaments were detained at the police station. It is said that father of the petitioner reached Patna and contacted the Addl. 30,000/- for release of the petitioner and ornaments to which his father refused as the ornaments had been purchased genuinely. His father was thrown out of the police station premises and the petitioner and ornaments were detained at the police station. It is said that father of the petitioner reached Patna and contacted the Addl. Director General, Vigilance, who after hearing the matter, rang up the Inspector General, Darbhanga and directed him to look into the matter. However, in the meantime the Officer Incharge, Sakri P.S. lodged an antedated FIR against the petitioner as Pandaul (Sakri) P.S. Case No. 140/05 dated 6.9.05 at 2.25 P.M. under section 414 IPC on the basis of his self-statement fabricating a false story. 4. According to the story as given out in the self-statement, Officer Incharge having received confidential information that a person was waiting at bus stand with stolen articles in a bag and as such he went there and saw a person with a black bag who wanted to flee on seeing the police but he was caught and he disclosed his name as Santosh Kumar and silver ornaments in six polethene bags were found which weighed 12.652 kgs. and the estimated value whereof was Rs. 1.5 lakhs and on demand, he could not produce any document to show the purchase of the said silver ornaments. The said man told that he ran a jewellery shop in the name and style of Mahalaxmi Jewellers in Laukahi Bazar where he purchased stolen goods and sold to Dilip Jewellers and from there he purchased new jewellery and this type of business was going on for the past ten years. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case where the police, without proper investigation and without examining receipt granted by the owner of the Dilip Jewelles, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner hurriedly on 3.11.05. But as a matter of fact there was no case of theft recorded to connect the seized ornaments nor anybody came forward to claim the same. It has also been submitted that after release of the petitioner from custody on bail, he filed petition for release of seized silver jewellery alongwith other documents to show his ownership. But as a matter of fact there was no case of theft recorded to connect the seized ornaments nor anybody came forward to claim the same. It has also been submitted that after release of the petitioner from custody on bail, he filed petition for release of seized silver jewellery alongwith other documents to show his ownership. But the court initially pressurised the petitioner to enter into a compromise with the police and when the petitioner refused, his prayer for release was rejected after keeping the same pending for eight months. A criminal revision was preferred before the sessions court bearing Cr. Revision No. 1-043/06 which was allowed. It is said that the petitioner also filed petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial court but the same was rejected vide order dated 3.8.06 without perusing the case diary and that too when no material was brought on record against the petitioner justifying his trial. 6. I have perused the complaint filed by the Officer Incharge, Laukahi police station, receipt granted by Dilip Jewellers, certificate and affidavit filed by them and I am of the view that the prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court. Even if the silver ornaments seized from the petitioner is alleged to be stolen property, there is nothing to connect the same with any reported theft of silver ornaments and no other person till date had laid any claim over the said property. Apparently, the policemen are seeking prosecution of the petitioner only to satisfy their greedy desire of extorting money either from the petitioner or his parents. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law and has to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed. The application is allowed. 8. Before I part I must express my strong resentment at the high handness of the Officer Incharge, Sakri P.S. Ramesh Chandra Upadhaya, who by his misdemeanour has not only erroded the faith of the public in the police force but has also had the audacity to play fraud on the court. In the circumstances a sum of Rs. 8. Before I part I must express my strong resentment at the high handness of the Officer Incharge, Sakri P.S. Ramesh Chandra Upadhaya, who by his misdemeanour has not only erroded the faith of the public in the police force but has also had the audacity to play fraud on the court. In the circumstances a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner herein by way of compensation by the State within a period of two months who shall be free to realise the same from the pay packet of the maniacal police officer. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna for information and appropriate action against the recalcitrant officer. 10. List this case after two months under the heading "To be Mentioned" to appraise the court of the action taken.