IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45001 of 2006 CHANDAN KUMAR SINGH @ CHANDAN SINGH @ CHANDAN KUMAR, son of Sri Mahendra Prasad Singh, Advocate, resident of village – shankarwar tola Mokama, P.O. & P.S.- Mokama, District – Patna, at present residing at Mohalla – Bishunpur, Pakri, P.S. – Phulwari, District and town – Patna. ------- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Chandra Shekhar Kumar Sinha, Inspector, Officer-in-Charge, Mokama Police Station, Mokama, Patna. --------- opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Sri Dronacharya, Adv. Sri Arbind Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Sushri Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. **** 07. 26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner has also been filed stating therein that for the present he is working with one private company S.I.S. (Security and Intelligence Services India Ltd.) initially posted at Hissar in State of Haryana but in March 2010 he was transferred to Munger where his attached with Indian Tobacco Company (I.T.C.), Munger. By filing this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner - 2 - has prayed for quashing of order dated 13.07.2006 passed in Special Case No. 25 of 2006 by Sessions Judge, Patna by which cognizance has been taken under section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The case was instituted on the self- statement of Sub-Inspector, Mokama Police Station, who with police party arrived at the shop of one Vijay Sah on telephonic information received about assembling of some miscreants at the shop. The informant while arriving found four persons fleeing but, one Rakesh Kumar Singh could not succeed in escaping was apprehended. On search, some ‘smake’ was recovered from his possession and the informant was reported that the person apprehended besides others including the petitioner for the last few days regularly coming at the shop and demanding Shoes and Sandles free of cost. Five persons have been named as the person fleeing including the petitioners and their names have been stated by the person apprehended besides Vijay Sah and the informant. On the basis thereof, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that name of - 3 - 5th person has been included with otherwise intention and he is none else than the petitioner himself. Moreover, case under section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act at best is made out against Rakesh Singh, the apprehended person, but none else there is no evidence against the petitioners who has good family background and academic career. The police has arrived on getting some information during occurrence and if the informant police officer has only stated that he could see four persons were fleeing but, five have been named on getting information person apprehended (accused person) and the victim shopkeeper, at this stage, it makes no difference no doubt as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in para 38 of the case diary, there is composite statement of some persons at the time of apprehension of the petitioner, that Rakesh Kumar singh @ Mathlu due to previous enmity and occurrence of assault falsely named the petitioner, but, at the same time, learned counsel concedes that there is nothing specific regarding previous occurrence anywhere else in the case diary. It is established principle of law that - 4 - cognizance is taken for the offences not specifically against accused or number of accused. The proper stage for examining which of the offence was committed by which of the accused, if, there are more than one accused persons is the stage of framing charge and proceeding for trial, if it is found fit to proceed against the accused persons at the stage of hearing on the point of charge, in case, there is no evidence against one or either of the accused he may be discharged. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to make his submission before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of charge, and the court shall after thoroughly examining the materials, pass appropriate order without being prejudice of instant none interference. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)