Criminal Miscellaneous No.24253 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- Dr. GAYA NAND CHAUPAL son of Ishwar Daya Chaupal, resident of Ward No.170, P.S.-Farbisganj, Dist.-Araria ….. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……… ……Opp.Party ------ For the petitioner: Mr.Ram Suresh Roy, Sr.Adv. Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, & Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha. For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution in respect of Harijan P.S.Case No.23 of 1998 instituted under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(i)(ix)3(2)(VIII) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In sum and substance the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the first information report. 2. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in the first information report there is no material showing involvement of the petitioner. On being asked by the court as to whether this petitioner is named accused or not, it was candidly admitted that the petitioner was not named in the first information report. Subsequently, the investigating officer approached the Magistrate 2 for issuance of processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that without any material the investigating officer was not authorized to file such petition. He submits that for political motivation the present case was filed against the petitioner and action was taken by the investigating officer. During the hearing learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of no evidence against the petitioner, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution. 3. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that in this case from the record it appears that no charge sheet was submitted. She further submits that in absence of pendency of any proceeding before the Magistrate, it would not be advisable for this court to interfere. She submits that this amounts to interference with investigation which, time without number, has been deprecated. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the materials available on the record. In this case even learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted that only a petition under section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed and no charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not named in the first information report nor there was any material showing involvement of the petitioner in the first information report there is 3 no question of passing an order for quashing of the first information report. What had happened during investigation has not been brought on record but it appears that after being satisfied that sufficient materials were collected against this petitioner and also due to some exigency the investigating officer had filed a petition for issuance of processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the view that while exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not be appropriate to pass any order restraining the investigating officer to press issuance of processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certainly, this amounts to interference with the statutory investigation which, cannot be exercised. Moreover, after registration of the first information report, the police started investigation and in absence of any report being submitted by the police it cannot be considered that a proceeding was pending before the learned Magistrate and in absence of pendency of any proceeding it cannot be said that there was any abuse of the process of court. So far as passing the order for issuance of processes under section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned I am of the opinion that such power is exercised only in the aid of investigation and it cannot be considered as pendency of any proceeding. Moreover, in the present case learned counsel for the petitioner has not even submitted that any order was passed on the petition of the investigating officer. 4 5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that this petition is premature and no order is required to be passed by this court at this stage. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, the order dated 2.3.2000 passed by this court whereby it was directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Harijan P.S. Case No.23 of 1998 pending in the court below shall remain stayed, stands automatically vacated. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 3rd May, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)