Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26280 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Prem Kumar Sah, son of Bhagat Sah 2. Rajendra Sah alias Rajendra Prasad , son of Bhagat Sah 3. Birendra Prasad Sah @ Birendra Prasad , son of Bhagat Sah 4. Rajan Kumar, son of Prem Sah All residents of Village- Machhargawan, P.S. Yogapatti, District-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------------ 5 26-09-2012 Heard Sri S.N.P.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Jitendra Narain Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajballabh Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in T.R. No.745 of 2009 arising out of Yogapatti P.S. Case No.169 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case is for offence under [STATUTE] . Learned Senior Counsel, while assailing the impugned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26280 of 2010 (5) dt.26-09-2012 2 / 4 2 order, submits that during entire investigation, nothing has been brought on record to show that seized parts of the motorcycles were either stolen or involved in robbery case and, as such, in absence of the fact being established that the motorcycles or parts of motorcycles were stolen, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted under [STATUTE] . In this case earlier by an order dated 14.02.2011 case diary was summoned and the same is on record. Learned Senior Counsel emphatically argued that the materials collected during investigation did not establish that the vehicle in question was stolen and, as such, it was a fit case for discharge. He submits that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind in a mechanical manner has dismissed the same, which requires interference by this Court. Sri Rajballabh Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that on information that stolen motorcycles were being dismantled in the Kabari Shop (Scrap Dealer) of petitioner no.1, a raid was conducted and during search, parts of one Rajdoot motorcycle having some Registration number and parts of Bajaj Boxar motorcycle were recovered. He submits that with a view to destroy the evidence, accused persons had got removed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26280 of 2010 (5) dt.26-09-2012 3 / 4 3 Chasis/Engine number of Bajaj Boxar motorcycle. He further submits that immediately after search and recovery of motorcycle/parts of the motorcycle, petitioner no.1 was asked by the police as to from where he got said motorcycles, a false assurance was given by petitioner no.1 to the Investigating Officer that he may produce relevant documents. Thereafter, he disappeared and for a long time, he could not be apprehended by the police, however at belated stage, he surrendered before the learned Magistrate. He submits that facts and circumstances of the present case make it clear that the motorcycles in question were stolen and, as such, after investigation chargesheet was submitted and the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . At the stage of charge, the petition for discharge was filed. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record has passed a detailed order. According to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the impugned order requires no interference. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the case diary. Of course, it has not been specifically asserted by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as to whether materials were brought on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26280 of 2010 (5) dt.26-09-2012 4 / 4 4 record to show that motorcycles were stolen or not, but fact remains that Chasis number of at least one motorcycle i.e. Bajaj Boxar Motorcycle was removed and both the motorcycles were dismantled. Parts of motorcycles were recovered, which suggest, prima facie that steps were taken for disposing of stolen property. In normal course, if a registered vehicle is recovered from a particular person, onus lies on him to show as to how such vehicle was found in his possession. Moreover, at the moment, learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge. At the stage of charge, only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. Even in a case of strong suspicion, charges can be framed and, as such, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, while dismissing the petition for discharge by the impugned order, has committed no error. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 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.