Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 729 (PAT)

Arjun Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-13

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. On repeated calls, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. The present case was admitted for hearing on 2.4.1998. While admitting the case, this Court had called for lower court record and had further directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceedings in trial No.730 of 1998 shall remain stayed. 3. It appears that by obtaining order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case and, as such, no one has come forward to press this petition. 4. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code in Tr.No.730 of 1998. 5. In paragraph 1 of the petition, while making prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance, it has been, stated that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without any written complaint by the Public Officer to whom first information was given or other public servant to whom he is Subordinate. The lower court record as well as the order dated 19.9.1997, whereby cognizance was taken, itself indicates that the Investigating Officer had submitted a report with a recommendation to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal code. 6. The petitioner had initially gave his fardbeyan before the Officer Incharge alleging therein that two unknown persons had forcibly taken the motorcycle of the petitioner and, as such, a case vide Paru P.S. Case No.3 of 1996 was registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, it was found that a complete false allegation was made by the petitioner and, thereafter, the police recommended for prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, lower court record was called for and the same is available along with the record of the present case. During the investigation, it was found that a complete false allegation was made by the petitioner and, thereafter, the police recommended for prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, lower court record was called for and the same is available along with the record of the present case. Perusal of the lower court records makes it clear that before filing the prosecution report against the petitioner, the Officer Incharge had obtained a report from the Superintendent of Police and only thereafter the report was submitted in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur. The report further indicates that final form in the case was submitted on 28.10.1996 and thereafter by order dated 4.7.1997 , notice was issued to the informant and even after issuance of notice when the informant(petitioner) did not appear, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 27.8.1997 accepted the final form and directed the office to start proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code in the file of complaint and subsequently by order dated 19.9.1997, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences as mentioned above. 7. On perusal of the report as well as the impugned order and materials available on the record, I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. On the contrary the statement of the petitioner made in paragraph-1 of the petition appears to be incorrect and false as well as contrary to the record of the case. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of the rejection of this petition, the order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith and the office is further directed to remit back the original lower court records, which was received earlier to the court below forthwith.