IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12748 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR SON OF SRI JAI LAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- RAMNA GALI, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT S.D.O.-CUM-SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, RAJAULI, DIST- NAWADAH. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DR. RAJIV KUMAR, EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER, NAWADAH. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 30.6.2010. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 20.8.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in Rajauli P.S. Case No.89 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 134(i)(G) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. While pressing the petition, Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has forcibly argued that the present case was instituted maliciously and arbitrary as per the instance of the concerned District Magistrate. It was 2 submitted that several officers of the Bihar Administrative Service had made complaint against the District Magistrate. On the ground of malicious prosecution, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit during the course of argument of the case, which is kept on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-9 to the petition, which is a letter bearing No. 1709 dated 11th August, 2006 issued by the District Officer, Nawadah. In the last paragraph of the said letter, it has been stated that in view of the aforesaid fact as per the request made by the Bihar Administrative Service Association, the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Home) Department was requested to consider the withdrawal of the F.I.R. He has also referred to several documents, which have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, to show that it was a case of out and out malicious prosecution and, accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 3 Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the materials available on record. From the F.I.R., it appears that the petitioner, while holding the post of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajauli, Nawadah was also Election Agent and District Panchayati Raj Officer, Nawadah. Allegation against him is that he has committed irregularity and illegality in the election and in the said election, the candidate, who was defeated, was falsely and incorrectly declared as elected candidate. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, the present F.I.R. was instituted for the offence under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 (i) (G) of the Representation of the People Act. After investigating the case, police submitted charge sheet and thereafter, the learned Magistrate, after examining the materials available on record by an order, which was passed long back on 20.8.2007, took cognizance of the offences and transferred the case to the court of Shri Subhash Rao, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class for its disposal. I have perused the impugned order as well as the materials available on record. So far as 4 N.H./ Annexure-9 is concerned, I am of the view that while F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner, steps were taken to influence the investigating agency. I am of the view that such steps are considered to be interference with the investigation and on the basis of Annexure-9, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. Moreover, the case is at initial stage of cognizance and the present case does not come in the category of exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)