Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18110 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Bechan Yadav son of Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Village- Patepur, P.S. Bahadurpur ( Fekla O.P.), District- Darbhanga 2. Lal Yadav Son of Kailu Yadav, resident of Village- Baruyara, P.S. Bahadurpur( Fekla O.P.), District-Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Yogendra Yadav, Son of Late Teju Yadav, resident of Village- Fattepur, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ----------------------- 5 09-07-2012 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.290 of 2008 arising out of Bahadurpur ( Fekala O.P.) P.S. Case No.25 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that he is not pressing the petition so far the petitioner no.2, namely, Lal Yadav is concerned. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not pressed so far petitioner no.2 is concerned. A plea was taken by learned counsel for the petitioners that though in the F.I.R. seven persons were named as accused for offence under [STATUTE] . During investigation name of petitioner no.1 was not found and, as such, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18110 of 2010 (5) dt.09-07-2012 2 / 3 2 initially chargesheet was submitted against other accused persons. This petitioner no.1 was not forwarded. The other accused persons were put on trial and finally they were convicted vide S.T. No.316 of 2004. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to conviction of other accused persons, a petition was filed by the informant before the Supdt. Of Police , wherein the informant with a view to implicate the petitioners disclosed that petitioner Bechan Yadav was also known as Baiju Yadav and thereafter a supplementary chargesheet was submitted, in which petitioner no.1 as well as petitioner no.2 was forwarded. He submits that paragraph 35 and 61 of the supplementary case diary make it clear that the petitioner no.1 was falsely implicated with the alias name as Bechan Yadav , whereas petitioner no.1 was not at all involved in the case. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.03.2010. I have perused the impugned order i.e. order dated 30.03.2010.The order indicates that both the petitioners were absconders and supplementary chargesheet was submitted. In the supplementary chargesheet, name of petitioner has come. One Certificate of concerned Mukhia was also brought on record to show that Bechan Yadav is also known as Baiju Yadav. From the impugned order, it is evident that this petitioner no.1 was known as Baiju Yadav also and, as such, by assigning a detailed reason, learned trial Judge has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of both the petitioners. After going through the impugned order as well as materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned trial Judge has committed no error. The Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18110 of 2010 (5) dt.09-07-2012 3 / 3 3 petition stands dismissed. Let Lower Court Record be sent to the court below forthwith. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.