JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 133 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1658 of 2009, including order taking cognizance dated 28.02.2012, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. The F.I.R. has been registered alleging therein that the informant addressed to National Human Rights Commission alleging that on 30.4.2003 his younger son namely Mani Kundal Mehta had gone to Ghori Ghat Bazar for purchasing vegetables and also to give some clothes to tailor and his one companion Chandresh Kumar notices the forest officials intercepting one tractor on pitch road between Nawa and Ghori Ghat Market and they went near tractor and in the meantime police arrived there and his son was caught and was abused and thereafter he was shot at. The police also caused injury by firing to the cleaner of tractor. On the dame day i.e. 30.4.2003 two hours after the said occurrence the police fired and killed one Sanjay Ji @ Vishwanath Ji and some male and some female innocent villagers were also badly assaulted by police. The informant said that his son was matriculate and a meritorious student having no connection with any extremist. The informant prayed for enquiry of said occurrence and taking necessary legal action against the officer in charge of Patan P.S. (the petitioner, as he was then posted) and other subordinate police officials and for adequate compensation for death of his son by police firing since it was a case of human rights violation by district police of Palamau. The copy of said complaint addressed to National Human Rights Commission was received by Suptd. of Police, Palamau and he directed the same to be registered as an FIR and the investigation of which was given to CID of Latehar district. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Officer Incharge of Patan Police Station in district of Palamau. of Police, Palamau and he directed the same to be registered as an FIR and the investigation of which was given to CID of Latehar district. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Officer Incharge of Patan Police Station in district of Palamau. He submits that once this petitioner’s name was recommended for gallantry award by the then D.I.G. A complaint was filed before National Human Rights Commission allegiant that it was a fake encounter and son of the complainant has died. The Home Department of the State of Jharkhand got the matter enquired through the Executive Magistrate of Daltonganj in which two persons said to have been died due to police encounter were found to be extremists and the encounter was not a fake one. To make the falsity he refer to paragraph no. 6 of the petition. The FIR which was subject matter of another FIR being Patan P.S. Case No. 91 of 2003, G.R. No. 57 of 2003 which was registered by this police officer alleging therein that on the date of occurrence itself i.e. on 30.4.2003 at about 5.45 p.m. the Range Officer of the Department of forest, namely, Vikram Singh got his fardbayan recorded with the Paton police. In the said fardbayan it was alleged that the said Range office in the company of his Divisional Forest Officer, namely, Shri Razi Ahmad of Daltonganj were on their usual patrolling duty on 30.4.2003 in Manatu forest Division. In course of patrolling the informant range officer, forest guard, Bindeshwari Paswan and Range clerk, Shri Krishna Singh were returning Paton but is it started raining at village Nawa. They took shelter in a house nearby the road. At about 3.15 p.m. two persons reached therein a motorcycle and started making enquiry from the informant about their identity. The informant and his companion disclosed their identity. Those two persons also disclosed themselves to be the extremist of MCC and asked the informant and others to accompany them. When the informant part refused to accompany them the aid two extremist whipped out pistols and pointed upon the informant and his companion. Just at that time the police patrolling reached there. The informant ran towards the police party and told about the occurrence. When the informant part refused to accompany them the aid two extremist whipped out pistols and pointed upon the informant and his companion. Just at that time the police patrolling reached there. The informant ran towards the police party and told about the occurrence. The two extremists started firing upon the police party and at the same time they were trying to flee away. One of the extremists died in the counter firing made by the police but the another extremist was seen fleeing away who was ultimately shot at by the chasing police party. The informant called the village chowkidar and the villagers and got the dead body identified through them. The villagers disclosed both the dead persons to be active members of MCC extremist group. He submits that the petitioner only discharging official duty and if such attack was there he was bound to protect. He submits that being the police office the case under section 27 of the Arms Act is not made out. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance by a non-speaking order. He submits that on the same day he was issued cognizance order and non bailable warrant. On this ground, he submits that entire criminal proceeding so far this petitioner is concerned is malicious and entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey the learned State counsel submits that the police recorded statement of one Krishna Yadav who was hearsay witness and in his statement nothing is to justify the prosecution case was found. In Para 11 of the counter affidavit he submits that Rupdeo Yadav who was examined and he has stated that when the police chased extremist Vishwanath Mehta @ Sanjay jee and he also received bullet injury in left side of his mouth then he senseless after 3 or 4 days. 5. In view of the above facts and the statement in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State it transpires that certain activity of extremist was going there and atleast two witnesses have not supported the case and the learned court has taken the cognizance and has called upon the petitioner to face the trial and on the same day the learned court has issued non bailable warrant which is against the mandate of law. 6. 6. Accordingly the order taking cognizance dated 28.2.2012 in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 133 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1658 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj is set aside. 7. The matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned to pass a fresh order looking into the materials on record in accordance with law. 8. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.