Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5714 of 2010 (5) dt.04-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5714 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ramdeo Rai S/O Late Gajadhar Rai R/O Vill.- Sain, P.S.- Vaishali ( Belsar ), Distt.- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sikander Rai S/O Mr. Rajgir Rai R/O Vill.- Sain, P.O.- Sain, P.S.- Vaishali ( Belsar ), Distt.- Vaishali .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 04-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that informant had filed protest petition against submission of final form. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 2006 by which and whereunder he refused to discharge the petitioner from the aforesaid case. It would appear from perusal of Annexure-1 to this petition that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Sikander Rai filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 1031 of 2004 in respect of kidnapping of his brother, namely, Shivendra Rai and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5714 of 2010 (5) dt.04-07-2012 the aforesaid complaint petition was sent to police station for institution of first information report and investigation and accordingly, Vaishali (Belsar) P.S. Case No. 64 of 2004 under [STATUTE] was registered against the petitioner and other accused. In course of investigation, victim Shivendra Rai appeared before the police and stated that he was never kidnapped rather he had gone to Gujrat in connection with his livelihood. Before statement of the aforesaid victim, petitioner was arrested and charge-sheet against him for the offences under [STATUTE] was submitted whereas investigation was kept pending against rest co-accused. Furthermore, in course of supervision, the accusation against rest accused were found untrue and accordingly, supervising authority recommended for submission of final form showing mistake of fact in respect of other accused and on the basis of aforesaid recommendation, Superintendent of Police, Hajipur directed the Investigating Officer to get record the statement of Shivendra Rai under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and having receipt of the aforesaid direction, the Investigating Officer insisted upon the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as his other family members to produce the victim before him for get recording the statement of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5714 of 2010 (5) dt.04-07-2012 victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and after that final form showing mistake of fact was submitted. It would appear from the record that while the investigation in respect of the other accused was pending, the case of the petitioner was committed to the court of Sessions and he was put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 2006 and before the trial court a discharge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner mentioning the above stated facts but the learned trial court rejected the aforesaid petition as stated above. In course of hearing, it came to light that charge against the petitioner has already been framed and trial of the petitioner has already commenced which is evident from Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. In my view, when the trial of the petitioner has already commenced, this petition has become infructuous and accordingly, this petition stands disposed of being infructuous. However, learned trial court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Vaishali at Hajipur is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.