IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.26671 of 2005
KISHAN YADAV
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
6 14-7-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
This quashing application has been preferred against the
order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Supaul in Cr.Rev. No. 110/1999 by which he upheld the order
of cognizance dated 3.9.1998 passed against the petitioner/informant
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in Tribeniganj PS case
no. 89/1997 u/s 182 of the Penal Code.
Shortly stated the case is that the informant/petitioner filed
first information report on 10.6.1997 before the Officer- in-charge,
Tribeniganj police station against the accused/ O. P. no.2 for offence
punishable u/ss 447, 448, 323 and 380 of the Penal Code. The police
investigated the matter and submitted final form with the label
accusation false. The police also submitted prosecution report against
the informant for offence u/ss 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. Learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul by order dated 3.9.1998 took
cognizance against the petitioner/informant u/s 182 of the Penal Code.
Against the said order dated 3.9.1998 the petitioner preferred Cr.Rev.
No. 110/1999 before the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa and the same
was transferred in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Supaul who by order dated 18.12.04 dismissed the revision. Against
the said dismissal the petitioner has preferred the present application
-2-
for quashing before this court.
Learned counsel submitted that when Tribeniganj PS case
no. 89/1997 was under investigation the petitioner being the informant
filed protest petition on 11.7.1997. He submitted that on 1.11.97 final
report was received in the case along with the prosecution report u/ss
182/211 of the Penal Code. Learned Magistrate accepted the final
report by order dated 1.11.1997 and proceeded on the protest. He
submitted that by order dated 3.9.1998 learned Magistrate took
cognizance u/s 182 of the Penal Code against the petitioner on the
basis of prosecution report submitted by the police and transferred the
case to another Magistrate for disposal. Learned counsel further
submitted that during enquiry few witnesses were examined on behalf
of informant and during the pendency of the enquiry the accused and
the informant compromised the matter and, therefore, by order dated
22.11.2000 learned Magistrate dismissed the protest/complaint u/s 203
of Cr. P. C. It appears that Cr. Rev. no. 110/1997 was preferred by the
petitioner/informant before the learned Sessions Judge in the year
1999. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate illegally continued two parallel proceedings in the same
matter one against the informant and other against the accused
persons.
It appears that in spite of knowledge that learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the
petitioner/informant u/s 182 of the Penal Code he compromised the
case with the accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner himself got
-3-
the protest/complaint dismissed by the Magistrate. The law has to take
its own course. At this stage, this court finds no illegality in the order
of cognizance. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly
dismissed the revision.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, at this stage, no
interference is required. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, petitioner will be at liberty to raise his points before the
court below at the appropriate stage of the case.
BKS/ (M. Saran, J.)