IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40058 of 2011 Raghuni Sharma , son of Late Jagdeo Sharma, R/O village-Parsagadhi, North, P.S. Jadia, Distt-Supaul……….petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- For Petitioner:- Sri Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Adv. For the State :- None. 2/ 15th December 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. State is absent. 3. On account of non representation of State, the matter in hand remained uncontroverted. 4. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that even taking into account the relevant annexures having along with written report, as well as after going through the allegation made by Raghuni Sharma son of Ramdhani Sharma, the amount which was allotted under BPL Scheme was withdrawn by Kaushalya Devi wife of Raghuni Sharma. The aforesaid Raghuni Sharma happens to be son of Jagdeo Sharma. 5. Contention of the petitioner is that even taking into account the allegation on its face, it was Kaushalya Devi who had withdrawn the amount. No allegation has been attributed to the petitioner that he happens to be responsible for withdrawal of the amount. So submitted that prosecution of petitioner is not at all justified. 6. So far present stage is concerned, the case happens to be at nascent stage. Jadia P.S. Case No. 73/2011 has been instituted only on 20.10.2011 and the investigation is going on. Taking into account the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex 2 Court as reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein at paragraph-19 it has been observed:- “The High Court should normally refrain from giving prima facie decision in a case when all the facts are incomplete and hazy, moreso, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. The aforesaid view also finds endorsed as reported in 2006(1) SCC (Cr.) 324 as well as (2007) 14 SCC 497. 7. So, for the present, the prayer of the petitioner appears to be pre-matured and is accordingly, rejected. 8. However, it is open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the investigating authority any events/documents/material to show his innocence. perwez ( Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)