IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53724 of 2007 MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHEO PRASAD, R/O VILL.LAXMI BIGHA, P.S. CHANDI, DIST. NALANDA -- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR . 2. RAMCHANDRA SINGH A.S.I. CHANDI P.S. P.S. CHANDI, DIST. NALANDA. -- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 03 06.09.2010 Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 16.03.2007 whereby on the basis of the prosecution report Annexure-2 cognizance under Sections 182,211 of the Penal Code has been taken. Petitioner filed a complaint Annexure-1 under diverse Sections of Penal Code including Sections 394 and 307 of the Penal Code which was transmitted to the Investigating Authority for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. Accordingly Chandi P.S. case no. 02 of 2007 dated 04.01.2007 was instituted. The Investigating Officer by a communication dated 31.01.2007 submitted a report wherein it was noted that the said case was falsely lodged by the petitioner and accordingly he be proceeded against under Sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. Accordingly the cognizance has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was still pending investigation. It is stated that the order sheet of the aforesaid case (Annexure-3) would show that the matter is being adjourned in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. for filing of final report /Charge sheet. It is also contended that having anticipated the illegal design of the Investigating Officer the petitioner had filed a protest petition on 19.06.2007 which was kept pending in absence of filing of the charge sheet/final report. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the prosecution report (Annexure-2) to show that although it records that final report has been submitted vide final report no. 14 of 2007 but no date is appearing on the said final report. In fact the space for date is vacant. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order taking cognizance is bad in law. By order dated 13.02.2009 the Investigating Officer (complainant/informant) was impleaded as opposite party no.2 and notices were directed to be issued. It appears that a duly signed vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf but nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the present application. In these fact situation, I am convinced that the order dated 16.03.2007 requires to be interfered with. The facts noted hereinabove would eloquently show that the final report was yet to be submitted in this case enabling the Court to proceed with the said report in accordance with law in the light of the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/informant. Without submitting the final report the present prosecution report was submitted. The complainant/informant of this report has not appeared before me to support the aforesaid prosecution report. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to interfere with the order. Accordingly order dated 16.03.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda in complaint case No. 54C-2/07 (State vs. Manoj Kumar) is quashed and set aside. This order, however, shall not preclude the Court below in proceeding afresh in accordance with law. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)