IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5431 of 2008 PARMANAND PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 09. 28.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Through the present application the order dated 18.07.2007 has been challenged whereby the learned A.C.J.M., Hilsa has taken cognizance under Sections 182, 211 of the I.P.C. in Case No. 05C2 of 2007. Initially the petitioner lodged Hilsa P.S. Case No. 333 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The police after investigation submitted final form being Final Form No. 91 of 2006 on 30.11.2006 treating the case as false and recommended for the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182, 211 of the I.P.C. and consequently by the impugned order dated 18.01.2007 the cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 182, 211 of the I.P.C. Fourth supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is stated that in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 333 of 2006, on the protest petition being filed on behalf of the petitioner the cognizance has been taken against the accused persons on 22.11.2008 under Sections 323, 504, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence in the circumstances, it 2 is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court has not agreed with the final form submitted by the police and found the case true as lodged on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of Court. Considering the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, it appears that what has been found to be incorrect and false by the police during investigation has been found to have substance during the enquiry by the Court. In such circumstance the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. in case No. 05C2 of 2007 is not permissible. This enumerate situation has arisen only because on submission of final form the cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. on 18.01.2007 in Case No. 05C2 of 2007 whereas in the initial case being Hilsa P.S. Case No. 333 of 2006, on protest, vide order dated 22.11.2008 the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons of the police case vide Complaint Case No. 05C2 of 2007 which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the 4th supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Once the opinion of the investigating agency has been reversed by the Court then there is no justification of prosecuting the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. 3 Hence in view of the aforesaid discussions allowing the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. will be an abuse of the process of Court. In the circumstance the order of cognizance dated 18.01.2007 passed in Case No. 05C2 of 2007 is hereby quashed. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands allowed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)