IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31891 of 2008 AMAR NATH PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 18.05.2004, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 418, 406 of the I.P.C. A supplementary affidavit has been filed to the effect that charges have still not been framed. The accusation has been levelled that during inspection on 02.05.1995 it was found that several buses were plying on unauthorized route thereby causing loss to the government in connivance with the people of the area. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspection was done on 02.05.1995 for which cognizance has been taken on 18.05.2004 whereas the case was lodged on 02.05.1995. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for unauthorized plying of the vehicle, there is specific provision under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules but without resorting to the same case has been filed under Sections 418 and 406 of the I.P.C. and 2 cognizance has also been taken under the same. Petitioner is one of the transporters whose vehicle was found plying on unauthorized route. On the basis of accusation no offence under I.P.C. is apparently made out. There is specific provision under the Motor Vehicle Act for taking action against the person who plies his vehicle on an unauthorized route. Considering the nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no offence under Sections 406, 418 is made out. Moreover under the Motor Vehicle Act, the persons under the Transport Department are authorized to lodge such cases. Keeping in view of the aforesaid fact, no useful purpose will be served in allowing to continue the prosecution. Hence in the interest of justice, the order of cognizance dated 18.05.2004 including the entire prosecution of Dumra P.S. Case No. 35 of 1995, Trial No. 1762 of 2011, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sitamarhi is hereby quashed with regard to the petitioner only. With the observations made above, the application stands allowed. Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)