CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14450 OF 2001 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- JAHURI SAH son of late Jadu Sah, resident of Village-Sohma, P.S.-Bithan, Dist.-Samastipur. ……. …….Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp. Party. ------- For the petitioners: Mr. B.N.Sinha ‘Suman’ For the State : Mr.Matloob Ram, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in G.O. Case No.188 of 1999, T.R. No.1007 of 2001. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner had initially filed a written report before the Officer Incharge Hasanpur (Bithan) Police Station on an allegation that Suresh Sah and others had committed offence under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of written report submitted by this petitioner, a first information report vide Hasanpur (Bithan) P.S. Case No.132 of 1994 was registered on 23.11.1994. After registering the first information report, police conducted investigation and after long delay the police came out with a case 2 that the petitioner had made false written report before the police and the police found that the case lodged by the petitioner was untrue. Accordingly, final form was submitted on 12.11.1999. In the final report it was also indicated that the prosecution report for prosecuting the petitioner under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code was being filed and vide annexure-2 to the petition, a prosecution report was filed on 12.11.1999 against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in Hasanpur (Bithan) P.S. Case No.132 of 1994. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.3.2000 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera took cognizance of offences under sections 211 and 188 (correctly 182) of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 28.3.2000 passed in T.R. No.1007 of 2001/G.O. No.188 of 1999, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition and it was admitted on 9.7.2002. While admitting the petition, lower court records were called for which have been received and are lying with the record of the present case. 4. Mr. B.N.Sinha ‘Suman’, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance submits that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned Magistrate differing with the final report submitted by the police took cognizance of the offences against the accused persons against whom the petitioner had leveled allegation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 3 referred to annexure-3 to the petition, which is a photo copy of the certified copy of the order dated 3.4.2000 passed in Hasanpur (Bithan) P.S. Case No.132 of 1994. It was submitted that once a competent court has treated the case instituted by this petitioner as true, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on an allegation for lodging a false case. It was submitted that it is true that the cognizance order against the accused persons in the case instituted by the petitioner was passed subsequent to the order of the present case, but fact remains that there was truth in the allegation made by the petitioner and, as such in any event prosecution of the petitioner in the prosecution report submitted by the police is not permissible and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Matloob Rab, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. However, he has not disputed that in Hasanpur (Bithan) P.S. Case No.132 of 1994 learned Magistrate differing with the final report had taken cognizance of the offences. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also perused the materials available on the record. This court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be proceeded with in T.R. No.1007 of 2001, G.O. No.188 of 1999 which has been initiated on the basis of prosecution report submitted by the police. 7. Since learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera has already taken cognizance of the offences in Hasanpur (Birthan) P.S. Case No.132 of 1994 against the accused 4 Patna High Court The 16th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR persons in the case instituted on the written report of the petitioner, no purpose will be served by allowing the petitioner’s prosecution in T.R. No.1107 of 2001, G.O. No.188 of 1999. 8. Hence, order of cognizance dated 28.3.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in T. R. No.1007 of 2001, G.O. No.188 of 1999 is set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar, J.)