IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.979 of 2008 WASI AHMAD son of Md. Abdulah resident of village Uchchidih, P.S. Adapur, Distt.-East Champaran. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through D.G.P., Bihar, Patna. 2. The S.P. Motihari. 3. The Officer-in-charge of Adapur (Harpur) P.S., Distt.- Motihari. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 5/ 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant application, the petitioner prays for quashing the First Information Report of Adapur (Harpur) P.S. case no. 135 of 2005 dated 03.11.2005 registered under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel submits that in the First Information Report, one Saukat Ali son of Abdullah Mian has been mentioned as an accused. He further submits that subsequently one Bhola Mian on account of personal grudge has also named this petitioner, by naming him as Wasi Ahmad alias Saukat Ali by adding alias name. Learned counsel submits that charge-sheet has been submitted on both Saukat Mian and the petitioner naming him as son of Md. Abdulla. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohmedrafiq Husenmiya Thakor & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1997) 10 SCC 578 has found that there are possibility of two persons bearing the same names causing confusion of identity. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court stressed the need for trial courts to indicate the rank of the accused stressed which recording evidence in such cases, as far as applicable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court should to issue circulars to lower courts, to implement this - 2 - suggestion. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner Wasi Ahmad son of Md. Abdulla and Saukat Ali @ Wasi son of Abdulla Mian are two different persons. In the instant case charge-sheet has allegedly been submitted The petitioner would be at liberty to chalalenge the order taking cognizance. The case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the instant case, as in the aforesaid case, the aggrieved person has challenged order taking cognizance. In the instant case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the First Information Report. Thus, writ application is disposed of with aforesaid liberty. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)