IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.1014 OF 2008 INDRADEO PASWAN, SON OF LATE JOGENDRA PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAJITPUR SAIDAT, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, JAI NAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 8. OFFICER INCHARGE, BASOPATTI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT MADHUBANI……………………….RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. P. Tekriwal, G.A. No.1 *** 4. 16.02.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner, who was at the relevant time posted as Officer Incharge of Basopatti Police Station in the district of Madhubani, has filed this writ application for quashing of the first information report in connection with Basopatti P.S. Case No.166/08 registered against him under Sections 384 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A case was instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and other sections of the Indian Penal Code against - 2 - some dealers of the Public Distribution System. He investigated the case. Later on, Sub- Divisional Police Officer, namely, Hira Lal Jha, supervised the case, and contrary to the materials on record, submitted a supervision note finding the case untrue. Thereafter the case was supervised by the Superintendent of Police and the case was found true and S.P. passed order of the transfer of the petitioner and directed the successor Investigating officer to submit charge sheet which was submitted. The allegation in the first information report is that in connivance with the said S.D.P.O., petitioner mis-conducted himself in investigating the case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegation made in the F.I.R. is accepted as true to the core, no criminal offence is made out so as to launch a prosecution against him under Section 384 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report was placed by him before this Court and from the F.I.R. it appears that only allegation against the petitioner is that, in connivance with the said - 3 - S.D.P.O., petitioner has changed the course of investigation so as to shield the actual accused persons. He submits that this may be misconduct on the part of the petitioner for which he may be departmentally proceeded against and steps have already been taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Be that as it may, the first information report does not make out any criminal offence committed by the petitioner so as to be prosecuted under Sections 384 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, this Court finds that launching of the prosecution against the petitioner under Section 384 read with Section 420 of the I.P.C. is an abuse of process of law and the same is fit to be quashed. It is hereby quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)