IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.40 of 2009 1. MISHRI LAL YADAV, SON OF LATE BARISH LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SAMDA, P.S. – RATANPURA, DISTT. SUPAUL. 2. BHUBANESHWAR YADAV, SON OF LATE THITHAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MUNGRAR, P.S. & DISTT. SUPAUL ----------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SAHARSA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUPAUL. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BIRPUR, DISTT. SUPAUL. 6. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, RATANPURA POLICE STATION, DISTT. SUPAUL. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIRPUR (BASANTPUR), KARJAIN, DISTT. SUPAUL. ------ RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioners - Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate. For the State - Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, A.C. to G.P. 13 ----------- 4. 13/10/2009 Petitioners have come to this Court for restraining the police from investigating Ratanpura P.S. Case No. 23 of 2008 and for quashing of the said case on the ground that accepting the allegation as made in the First Information Report, no cognizable offence is at all disclosed giving jurisdiction to the police to register it as an F.I.R. and/or to investigate the same. The facts are not much in dispute. The F.I.R. alleges that on public complaint that goods of OXFAM, NGO related in flood relief work were being misappropriated and sold it in black market by petitioners from their residence, the present case has been registered under Sections 403, 2 406, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code on 10.10.2008. In fact, first in respect of the goods found in the house of the petitioners, a seizure list was prepared. The goods found were pea nuts, Juggary (Gud), Sattu, Chura and Zeoline(Water purifier). Petitioner No. 2 is alleged to be representative of OXFAM/Bihar Seva Samiti The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that firstly there has never been any complaint from OXFAM. In fact, petitioner No. 2 is the representative of OXFAM. These goods were collected by OXFAM and given it to Bihar Seva Samiti for distribution. They were stored in the house of the petitioner No. 1. In fact, Bihar Seva Samiti had on coming to know of the aforesaid seizure list, moved the District Magistrate for release of the goods and the goods were also released to him. There was no allegation at any stage that the goods had been misappropriated or any part of goods earlier has been misappropriated by the petitioners in any manner. Petitioners further submit that so far as black marketing is concerned, the allegation is too spacious and misconceived. Black marketing is a legal concept where a commodity is being sold at a price higher than statutorily fixed and chargeable. Thus there is no question of black marketing. There is no case of misappropriation because no one alleges misappropriation. Petitioners submit that even though one year investigation has gone back, no one has come forward to allege that any goods that were entrusted 3 to the petitioners have been misappropriated by the petitioners in any manner. In other words, there is no complaint to anyone much less police by either OXFAM or Bihar Seva Samiti. It is thus submitted that in those circumstances, it cannot be said that any offence at all is committed much less a cognizable offence. It is submitted that the police has unfettered jurisdiction to register and investigate an offence if it is a cognizable offence. Thus it is a case of no offence and in such situation, Police has no jurisdiction either to register the case or investigate the same. There cannot be a fishing enquiry after institution of a case because the condition precedent to its institution of a case and taking up investigation is an allegation of a cognizable offence. A counter affidavit has been filed in which in reply to specific assertions that there was no complaint from either OXFAM or Bihar Seva Samiti in any regards, there is no reply. The only bases for instituting the case is alleged public complaint but what offence has been committed is not even stated in the counter affidavit, whose property and which property has been misappropriated or misutilised is not there, this is so even after one year of investigation. This Court would not go into the allegation of the petitioners that it is because of ulterior motives that the Police registered this case on statement of the B.D.O. The case has to be decided on legal issues. The legal issue in this regard is a well settled that if the First Information 4 Report discloses no offence, then Police has no jurisdiction to register and/or investigate the same, more so, if no cognizable offence is disclosed. As noted above, the petitioner has rightly submitted that what to talk of a cognizable offence, no offence at all is disclosed. The Court is in agreement with the submission of the petitioners in this regards. The counter affidavit even though being filed one year after as institution of the case is unable to point out as to what offence has been committed. It is well settled that instituting an F.I.R. is not a fishing enquiry. The jurisdiction of the Police to investigate though unfettered is conditioned upon disclosure of a cognizable offence. Yet no offence much less a cognizable offence is disclosed. In that view of the matter, I am left with no option but to quash the First Information Report aforesaid and consequently restrain the Police from investigating the matter any further. Writ application is thus allowed in the terms aforesaid. S. Ali (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)