IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11866 of 2008 BINAY YADAV S/O LATE DEEP NARAYAN YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR . 2. BIPIN SINGH S/O SHIV NANDAN PRASAD --- OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the O.P. : None. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03 28.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On earlier dates learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 had appeared but today he has not appeared. Petitioner assails order dated 19.04.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kumarkhand P.S. Case no. 9 of 2007 instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 396 of the Penal Code whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner besides others. It is the stand of the petitioner that he has been charge sheeted in the case but there is absolutely no iota of evidence/material available against him indicating his complicity in the alleged occurrence in any manner. It is the stand of the petitioner that several accused persons of the case made confessional statements but in none of them name of the petitioner figures. He submits that the Superior Police Officer in paragraph no. 130 of the case diary (supervision note) conjectured and named the petitioner. On these facts appearing from the record it is submitted that the 2 criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner would be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Learned APP, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the State was given opportunity to peruse the case diary which was called for in the present case. Learned APP upon perusal of the case diary submits that there appears no legal material/evidence available against the petitioner in the whole of the case diary except the supervision note of the Dy.S.P. and Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that supervision note cannot be treated to be legal evidence particularly when there is absolutely no material available on record to conjecture that petitioner might have hand in the case. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that there is no legal evidence/material against the petitioner except the Supervision note which has no evidentiary value. In that view of the matter the case seems to be covered by one of the categories spelt out in the case of (State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 ~ 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335). Consequently, this Court is satisfied that criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner by reason of the impugned order would be a sheer abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Order dated 13.12.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court 3 no.2, Madhepura) in Cr. Rev. No. 81 of 2007 and order dated 19.04.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Kumarkhand P.S. Case no. 9 of 2007, G.R.No. 64 of 2007, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, are quashed and set aside. This order shall, however, not preclude the Court from invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the circumstances/situations so warrant. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)