IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30625 of 2007 ABHAY GUPTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate 3. 07.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the state is present but as usual, he has no brief with him to assist the court. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 19.4.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Kanti P.S. Case No. 150/05. By this order, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner u/Ss 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(A) of the Indian Penal Code. F.I.R. of Kanti P.S. Case No. 150/05 was instituted on the basis of written report of A.S.I. Kanti P.S. The F.I.R. discloses that the informant received secret information regarding illegal manufacturing of duplicate mobil near NH- 28 in a building where board of Ajanta Chemical Works is displayed. The informant along with the raiding party, came at the premises of Ajanta Chemical Works where he found the main gate closed but some labourers working in the campus. The informant entered into the premises and found several filled and unfilled drums of used mobil. He also found the drums connected with the machine. He found 2 containers of different capacity and the plastic jerkings filled with mobils. On the drums, label of SIMPOL LTX-40, Ajanta Chemical Works, India-842001 were printed but the place of manufacturing was not mentioned. In different rooms, he found containers of mobil. In sum and substance, the allegation is that the petitioner was manufacturing mobil illegally and it was being packed without disclosing the place of manufacturing. Further it is alleged that the relevant documents in order to show that the accused persons are authorized for such manufacturing, were not produced. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been instituted for commission of offence u/Ss 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(A) of the Indian Penal Code but on the basis of allegations made in the F.I.R. no prima facie offence is made out under any of the alleged sections. There is no whisper in the F.I.R. that the mobil or the jars containing mobils found in the premises of M/s Ajanta Chemical Works were the stolen property or any case has been registered by anyone with regard to theft of those articles. Since there is no such allegation of theft, even if the articles were found and seized from the premises of m/s Ajanta Chemical Works , the proprietor and anyone whosoever was present there, cannot said to have committed offence u/S 414 of the Indian Penal Code . Regarding the offence u/Ss 467, 468 & 471, it has 3 been submitted that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner has indulged in any illegal activity or manufacturing was being done in the name of any other business manufacturing house. It is also not alleged that the company which manufactured mobil was not registered or not possess license for manufacturing the articles which were being manufactured . There is nothing to show that there was no valid document for manufacturing the items which were being manufactured. So far the M/s Ajanta Chemical Works is concerned, it was initially authorized to manufacture bicycle oil, grease in the year, 1981. Subsequently, by different documents which have duly been annexed with the application, Company was allowed to manufacture other articles and license for the purpose was issued in favour of the business unit. It is also submitted that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner or the unit in question i.e. m/s Ajanta Chemical Works has committed any forgery in any record for the purpose of cheating. There is no evidence that the trade mark in the name of petitioner Simpol has not been issued by the office of the Registrar of the Trademark as such, any forgery has been committed. Simply because the informant has suspected some illegality , than cannot be a ground for taking cognizance when prima facie, no case is made out under any of the alleged sections mentioned in the F.I.R. In 4 support of the contention regarding authorized manufacturing by the business unit, the documents have been annexed as Annexures- 3, 3/A/ 4, 5, 5/A, 6 and 6/A with the Cr. Misc. application. It has further been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that in reality , it is a malicious prosecution at the instance of the informant and other police personnel for the reasons best known to them. Counsel for the state is not in a position to assist the court, the reason is that he did not have even brief of the case. Considering the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and that on the basis of the allegations, no offence is made out and also that there is nothing in the order taking cognizance to show that during investigation, any specific evidence has come before the court in support of the allegation made in the F.I.R. I find it proper to quash the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Kanti P.S. Case No. 150/05. Accordingly, the order dated 19.04.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Kanti P.S. Case No. 150/05 is quashed. This application is allowed. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )