IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50963 of 2007 DINESH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE HARISH CHANDRA CHOUDHARY @ LATE HARI CHARAN CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LASKARA, P.S. TAJPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ………………………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Anjani Kumar and Sunil Kumar, Advocates. For the State : None. ------------- O R D E R The petitioner, one of the two F.I.R. named accused of Tajpur P.S. Case No.173 of 1999, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3.5.2002 passed therein by the erstwhile Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 I.P.C. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Morwa, alleging inter alia, that the petitioner herein had collected “red cards” from 73 card holders on the pretext of getting them inspected by the competent officials but the same cards had neither been returned to the bonafide card holders nor they had been submitted for inspection by the officials. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had subsequently written to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samastipur, stating about the theft of the said cards. In the opinion of the officials the alleged act of the petitioner taking the red cards and not returning them was an offence. It appears that when the case was taken up for admission on - 2 - 29.1.2009 quizzical eyebrows were raised on seeing the legitimacy of an order dated 3.5.2002 being questioned in 2007 and upon a query being made it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till that date no further progress had been made in the case. Accordingly, a report/explanation was called for as to why no further progress had been made in the case of the year 1999 wherein cognizance was taken on 3.5.2002. The desired report sent by the court below makes interesting reading. It appears that the other accused appeared in court and was released on bail and had also appeared after the cognizance had been taken. It further appears that the charge sheet had been submitted showing the petitioner herein as an absconder and that till 12.2.2009 i.e. the date of the report, he had neither surrendered in court nor had he been apprehended by the police and that the case has been pending for his appearance. From the above report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, a presumptive opinion naturally evolves that the petitioner herein by a show of peevish arrogance was circumventing and forestalling the administration of justice which in no manner can be condoned or given any leverage. True it is that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice but such power cannot be invoked to come to the rescue of a person who without surrendering in court has tried to by pass the course of justice on a rationale that he himself is guilty - 3 - of abuse of the process of the court. In the instant case, the petitioner, notwithstanding having full knowledge that a charge sheet has been submitted against him, has chosen to abscond for over five years and continues to do so even today. In the circumstances, no relief can be given to him. To act otherwise would be a failure and travesty of justice. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed. The petitioner will submit himself law by surrendering in the court in seisin of his case and seek relief therefrom. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 22nd of May, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.