IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16140 of 1998 BIJALI YADAV SON OF PARSURAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAHUDO, POLICE STATION TEKARI, DISTRICT- GAYA… ……………………………………………PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR ………………………… OPP. PARTY ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. RASHID IZHAR,ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : MR. LALA KAILASH BIHARI, SR. ADVOCATE ---------- 8 12-3-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari, Sr. Advocate appearing for the opposite party. The essential facts may be noticed in brief before taking note of grievance of the petitioner. Petitioner filed complaint case no. 190 of 1995 before the court of competent Magistrate at Gaya on 9-5- 1995 alleging offences under sections 148,452,380,307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against six accused persons in the complaint. It was alleged that on the next day of the occurrence which took place on 5-5- 1995, the complainant had gone to the Tekari police station and handed over a written report to the Officer-Incharge but no action was taken on such report and therefore a complaint petition was filed in court. However, while the complaint petition was pending, police submitted final report on 30-11-1995 which disclosed that in fact on the basis of written report by the petitioner Tekari P.S.Case No. 192 of 1995 was instituted on 8-10-95 and after investigation police came to the conclusion that the allegations were maliciously false and hence it recommended for action against the petitioner under section 182/211 of the I.P.C. . On such report the present case i.e. G.O. Case No. 262 of 1995 was instituted in which cognizance was taken on 2-8-1997 giving 2 rise to trial number 435 of 1998. Petitioner wants quashing of this case under section 182 and 211 I.P.C. on the ground that although the complaint filed by him before the Magistrate was dismissed on 10-7-97 the petitioner preferred Cr.Revision No. 99 of 1997 before the District and Sessions Judge, Gaya which was allowed on 22-9-1997 and the matter was remanded for further enquiry which resulted in an order of cognizance on 4-5-1998. In substance it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he cannot be prosecuted for filing false case and making false allegations before the police, under sections 182/211 Cr.P.C. when on same allegation cognizance has been taken in the complaint case resulting into trial of the accused persons. This quashing application was admitted for hearing on 21-8- 1998 and an interim order was passed for stay of further proceeding in the case in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform this Court regarding present stage of complaint case no. 190 of 1995. Pendency of that complaint case is the main defence of the petitioner against his prosecution in the present case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances this application is disposed of with the following directions;- (1) Within two months from today the petitioner shall appear before the court below giving full information regarding the complaint case no. 190 of 1995 and whether it is pending or has been disposed of. If the case has been disposed of then a copy of the final judgment or order should also be made available to the court below within a further period of one 3 Naresh month.(2) On receipt of aforesaid information if the trial court finds that the complaint case is still pending it shall keep the proceeding of this case pending and stayed till the disposal of Complaint Case No. 190 of 1995. (3) If the complaint case is still pending then the court below shall send an intimation to the court concerned that the final out- come of the complaint case should be made known to the court as soon as the complaint case is disposed of. The responsibility will also be cast upon the petitioner to furnish the final outcome of the complaint case if it is still pending within a period of one month from the date of final disposal. Upon final disposal of the complaint case no. 190/1995 the court below shall take into consideration the final judgment in that case and then decide afresh either to proceed or not to proceed in the present case on the basis of findings in the complaint case, in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)