IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50562 of 2008 Chandra Bhushan Prasad, S/o Sri Amrit Prasad, resident of Village-Sakri Police Station-Islampur, District-Nalanda presently posted as Tax Assistant, Employees of Income Tax Department, Government of India and posted at Patna, Bihar. Versus The State of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3. 12.12.2011 Heard Mr. Sahab Azeen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nityanand Tiwary learned A.P.P. for the State. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.9.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa, Nalanda by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 25 (1-B), 26 and 25 of the Arms Act against the petitioner and also the entire proceeding arising out of Islampur P.S. Case No. 162 of 2007 dated 20.11.2007. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an Tax Assistant in the Department of Income Tax and presently posted at Patna. He alongwith other co-villagers was seeing a cultural programme of drama during which police suddenly conducted a raid and it is alleged that live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that after thorough 2 investigation even at the level of the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda the name of the petitioner being involved in criminal activity has not come and even the allegation against him has not been proved by any of the witnesses. He submits that cognizance has been taken without any application of mind by the Court concerned and, given an opportunity, he can demonstrate that no evidence of any sort has come against him during the entire investigation. Learned counsel submits that the only reason for him to approach this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was that he apprehended that he would not be heard properly and might suffer penal consequences without any wrongdoing on his part. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that a more appropriate and efficacious remedy for the petitioner would be to file a petition for discharge before the Court concerned and the Court would then decide upon the same prior to framing of charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner readily agrees to this. Accordingly, this application is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Court concerned for his discharge. If such petition is filed within 6 weeks from 3 today, the Court concerned, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass order in accordance with law taking into account the materials available from the police investigation or otherwise produced by the petitioner which may be admissible in law. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)