Criminal Miscellanious No.565 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PANKAJ SINGH, SON OF SRI DAYA SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF BHOOTNATH ROAD, HIG SECTOR-7, FLAT NO. 14, BLOCK NO. 4, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE OFFICER INCHARGE KADAMKUAN (KANKARBAGH), DISTRICT PATNA. 3. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF KADAMKUAN (KANKARBAGH) DISTRICT PATNA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES Cr.Misc. No.12930 of 2009 PANKAJ SINGH, SON OF SRI DAYA SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF BHOOTNATH ROAD, HIG SECTOR-7, FLAT NO. 14, BLOCK NO. 4, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASHOK SINGH, SON OF LATE KRIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKRANYA, P.S. GOPALPUR (GAURICHAK), PATNA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate (in both cases) For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. (in Cr. Misc. No. 565 of 2007) For the State : Mr. P.K. Jha, A.P.P. ( in Cr. Misc. No. 12930 of 2009) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 565 of 2007 has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 643 of 2006 dated 24.7.2006 instituted by Pankaj Singhal, whereas Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12930 of 2009 has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 24.1.2007 taken in Fulwarisharif (Gaurichak- 2 Gopalpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 455 of 2006 dated 23.7.2006. The main contention of the petitioner is that both the cases relate to the same incident and as such the later case i.e. Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 643 of 2006 should merge with the case lodged earlier i.e. Fulwarisharif (Gaurichak-Gopalpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 455 of 2006. 2. On perusal of the First Information Report of both these cases, it would appear that an occurrence took place on 23.7.2006 in which it is alleged that several persons had gathered at the place of occurrence i.e. Ravindra Singh’s cabin, Chakbairiya Karnpura Road, Thana- Gaurichak (Gopalpur O.P.), Patna and there was exchange of hot words as well as firing etc. In this case there are number of accused persons including the petitioner and the informant of Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 643 of 2006. The allegation in Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 643 of 2006 is that the informant Pankaj Singhal alleges that he was kidnapped by the accused persons named in the First Information Report. He was able to free himself and run away. Subsequently he was caught and beaten up for which he had lodged this case. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case instituted on 23.7.2006 is an after thought and the investigating authorities have not charge sheeted Pankaj Singhal in Fulwarisharif (Gaurichak-Gopalpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 455 of 2006 as they found that Pankaj Singhal was not well and had been attacked by the accused persons. The main grievance of the petitioner Pankaj Singh is that the investigating authorities have wrongly exonerated Pankaj Singhal in Fulwarisharif (Gaurichak-Gopalpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 455 of 2006. 4. These aspects of the matter can be examined at the proper stage and if the Court finds that in fact there is material against Pankaj Singhal, the Court has ample power to take steps in that direction. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere and pass positive orders in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at this stage, that Pankaj Singh has not been found guilty in Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 643 of 2006, but because of the order of stay by this Court no steps have been taken by the Court below in either accepting or rejecting the final 4 form. Obviously the Court below would be required to take a decision in this matter expeditiously. 5. These quashing applications are disposed of. Patna High Court, 09th of May, 2011, N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)