IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.392 of 2011 Gauri Shankar Pandey & Ors. . Versus The State of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 taking cognizance of the offences under sections 347, 386/34 of the Penal Code in connection with Agamkuan Police Station Case No.263 of 2010 (GR No.2864 of 2010). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on bare perusal of the First Information Report it appears that no ingredient for the alleged offences is disclosed and as such, the above police case deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the State police could not have registered case and investigated; moreso when neither Ganja was seized nor the Driver of the vehicle and owner were booked as Ganja was loaded in the vehicle in question. The police investigated the aforesaid case and submitted the charge sheet without considering the fact that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not available. On submission of the charge sheet, the learned court below took cognizance of the aforesaid offences without sanction of the competent authority. Learned counsel further submitted that if at all there is any violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, the case could have been instituted under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and not for the alleged offences and as such, in the above circumstances, the - 2 - submission is that the entire prosecution is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and respondent-authorities also deserve to be directed to clarify as to how this case was registered against the petitioners. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the First Information Report discloses the commission of the alleged offences of wrongful confinement for the purpose of extortion of money and also committing the offence of extortion by putting the person concerned in fear of death and as such. ingredients for registering the aforesaid police case under sections 347, 386/34 of the Penal Code are very much available, which would appear from perusal of the First Information Report. Moreover, on such information, the case was investigated and upon investigation, material/evidences were found available to support the prosecution. Accordingly, the charge sheet was submitted. Upon submission of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the case diary, charge sheet and other materials available on record was of the view that prima facie the alleged offence is made out against the petitioners and cognizance was thus taken and as such, there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. It is further submitted that there is nothing on the record that the petitioners were discharging their official duty. Considering the rival submission of the parties and upon perusal of the First Information Report as also the order taking cognizance, it appears that during investigation, materials, including the statement of the Driver recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure 2) have come in support of the - 3 - offence alleged and as such, the learned Magistrate took cognizance upon considering the materials on record. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the petitioners were authorisedly acting in discharge of their official duty. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it goes without saying that it will be open for the petitioners to raise all their rights and contentions available in law at the time of framing of the charges. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed with above observations. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)