IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7500 of 2009 ASHOK SINGH @ AS HOK KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amarendra Prasad, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 16.12.2010 Heard. This is an application for quashing the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Sheikhpura in Barbigha (Sheokhopur) P.S. Case no. 46 of 2005 G.R. No. 153 of 2005 against petitioner and others for offence under Sections 461, 379/34 and order to issue summons against the accused persons by which cognizance has been taken. F.IR. is against the unknown persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some unknown persons entered into Jewelry shop of the informant and looted the articles by breaking the Cell. However, after investigation the charge-sheet submitted against two persons namely Karu Sah and Rakesh Kumar and subsequently the charge-sheet has been filed against four more persons including this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the charge-sheet the complicity of the six petitioner found in view of the confessional statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 in the entire case diary there is no material whatsoever against the petitioner for implication in the crime and further submitted that even in the confessional statement of the co-accused the name of the petitioner has find place in a manner that one Suresh Mistry who works in the Saw Mill of the petitioner is involved in case however. From perusal of the case diary the learned counsel for the State could not pointed out any material except that the statement of the co-accused recorded in paras 50 and 51 of the case diary where it has been mentioned that accused Suresh Mistry works in the saw mill of Ashok Singh (petitioner). There is specific averment that six persons which includes namely Karu Sah, Subhash Singh, Rakesh kumar, Bam Sardar and Suresh Mistry along with one unknown persons committed there is no statement in the confessional statement about the implication of this petitioner but name of the petitioner find place as that one Suresh Mistry who works in the Saw Mill of ( Ashok Singh) the petitioner was in the crime. Hence no act of commission of offence with regard to the crime has been attributed to him but it has only mentioned one Suresh Mistry who worked in the Saw mill of the petitioner was involved in the crime does not make out a case or offence against this petitioner. There is no mention of any offence attributed to the petitioner there 3 is no material of any offence the entire case diary about the implication of the petitioner in the crime and hence it appears that the learned Magistrate without his due application of mind for take cognizance and hence the impugned order is hereby set aside with regard to this petition and petition is allowed. Amit ( Gopal Prasad, J.)