Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16328 of 2008 ====================================================== Muzaffar Khan , Son of Abul Hassan Khan, Resident of village Badaiya, P.S. Barachatti, District – Gaya. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Manjar Yahiya Khan, Son of Jakaria Khan, Resident of village Sandiha, P.S. Barachatti, District – Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 12-03-2012 Heard Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In this case by the order dated 29.06.2010 while calling for case diary and supervision note in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 109 of 1991, a report was also called for regarding the status of the case. Case diary as well as report has been received. Report is kept at flag ‘X’, which indicates that in this case after the order of cognizance the case is fixed for appearance of the accused persons. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the Investigating Officer after concluding investigation was of the opinion that informant of the case was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16328 of 2008 (5) dt.12-03-2012 2 / 3 2 required to be prosecuted for the offence under [STATUTE] . However, subsequently, new Investigating Officer took charge of the case and without collecting any further material submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate without application of mind, in a mechanical manner, has passed the order of cognizance on 25.04.2000. Sri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after perusing the case diary candidly submits that during further investigation no new material was collected. However, he does not dispute the fact that during investigation case was supervised by senior police officers and all police officers were of the opinion that informant of the case had planted the present case, and as such, in view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact, that once the Investigating Officer and superior police officers had opined for prosecuting the informant of the case for the offence under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal code, there was no reason for second Investigating Officer to file charge sheet, that too, without collecting any fresh material. In view of the facts and circumstances, there is no option but to set aside the order dated 25.04.2000, passed by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16328 of 2008 (5) dt.12-03-2012 3 / 3 3 learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghatty, Gaya in Barachatti P.S. Case No. 109 of 1991 corresponding to Trial No. 103 of 2007. Accordingly order, dated 25.4.2000, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghatty, Gaya in Barachatti P.S. Case No. 109 of 1991, Tr. No. 103 of 2007 is hereby set aside so far as petitioner is concerned. The petition stands allowed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 211

Statute Text:
Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. False charge of offence made with intent to injure. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.