Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32016 of 2011 ====================================================== Satyadev Paswan, Son of Late Dulari Paswan, resident of Village-Kewal, P.S. Sirdalla, District-Nawada .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR) ------------------ 3 17-01-2012 Heard Sri Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajeev Nayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner , who is the informant in Sirdalla P.S. Case no.58 of 2010, G.R. No.868 of 2010, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 25.02.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . It was submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged under [STATUTE] . However, the Investigating Officer with a view to favour the accused persons has submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] . It was submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, there is sufficient material to indicate that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32016 of 2011 (3) dt.17-01-2012 2 the case was under [STATUTE] . However, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has taken cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] . It was further submitted that a counter case was also filed against the petitioner of the present case by the accused person, in which similar allegation was levelled and F.I.R. was lodged under [STATUTE] , but in the said case, the Police submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] and the said case already been committed to the court of Session. On the aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. I have perused the materials available on record. Without going into the merit of the case, the Court is of the opinion that since the learned Magistrate after submission of the chargesheet has taken cognizance, the question whether the material collected during the course of investigation discloses commission of offence under [STATUTE] or not, can be examined at the appropriate stage and at this stage it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the whole materials , which have been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32016 of 2011 (3) dt.17-01-2012 3 collected during the course of investigation, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This power is to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. However, the Court expects that at the appropriate stage the learned Magistrate after perusing the materials available on record will pass appropriate order. I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with above observation. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 427

Statute Text:
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief, and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upwards. Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.