Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 773 (PAT)

Anil Prasad Verma v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-15

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The present petition was filed against the order of cognizance in the year 1998. The present petition was admitted on 4.8.1998. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. 3. It appears that after obtaining an order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case and, as such, no one has come forward either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 4. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 2.5.1997 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, Katihar. By the said order, learned chief judicial magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under sections 408, 409,420,465,467, 468, 471 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code in Katihar P. S. Case No.73 of 1990 and directed for issuance of process for securing attendance of accused persons. The short fact of the case is that on a written report of range officer, BISCOMAUN, an F. I. R. vide Katihar town P. S. Case no.73 of 1990 was instituted against one accused, namely, Ram Naresh Sharma, the then depot manager in C. C. A. Depot, Katihar on an allegation of misappropriation of a sum of Rs.9,44,915.96 in between 4.12.1988 and 28.2.1989. 5. From the petition, it appears that the petitioner had pleaded that after investigation police submitted chargesheet against the only named accused, namely, Ram Naresh Sharma. However, the police kept investigation open against Md. Reyazuddin, Suresh Prasad and Ram Bilash Singh. However, name of this petitioner was not mentioned. The petitioner has further pleaded that after about lapse of seven year, the investigating Officer filed requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and other two accused persons, namely, Ram Bilash Singh and Suresh Prasad. 6. In paragraph 7 of the petition itself, the petitioner has stated as follows: "7. The petitioner has further pleaded that after about lapse of seven year, the investigating Officer filed requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and other two accused persons, namely, Ram Bilash Singh and Suresh Prasad. 6. In paragraph 7 of the petition itself, the petitioner has stated as follows: "7. That the allegation even as per the Memo of evidence submitted by the I. O. dated 13.1.1997 is against the petitioner is that he concealed the defalcation of Rs.36,24,433.86p in receipt of fertilizer in his audit report which was revealed in the special audit report of the biscomaun Depot Katihar in the year 1984-85. " 7. From the averment made by the petitioner without going into other details, it is evident that the petitioner was also one of the conspirators in committing the alleged offence and, as such, while taking cognizance, the learned magistrate has not committed any error. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 9. In this case, while admitting the case, this court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let this order be sent to the court below forthwith.