IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38937 of 2009 BHUSHAN PASWAN, SON OF LATE SHEO RAM PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANI, P.S. BACHHUWARA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DELHA, P.S. DELHA, DISTRICT GAYA. --- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 3 18.12.2009 The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 11.8.2009 passed by the S.D.J.M., Sherghati at Gaya under Sections 147, 148, 337, 353, 384, 386, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was the Tax Checking Officer on Dobhi Check Post. Apparently there was a problem of overloading and at the time of checking, and the persons concerned had threatened the petitioner at his office. It has been alleged in the First Information Report that the Chairman of the Transport Association Bindi Yadav, Bilash Yadav, Sunil Singh, Madan Yadav, Jagan Yadav, Sanjay Singh, Pinku Singh, Rajeev Singh and others were the persons who were responsible for pressurizing the checking party and creating hindrances in the checking programme. It is said that when the checking programme was going on then the above named persons and their associates had created disturbances as described in the First Information Report which resulted in the said occurrence. By annexure-2 the informant-petitioner filed an application before the S.D.J.M. stating therein that he had not identified the persons who had actually taken part in the occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the petitioner has been made accused in this case alleging that he has come into conspiracy with the accused 2 persons responsible for the said occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had specifically stated that he cannot identify the miscreants as he is not a local person. It is further submitted that he had raised the suspicion against the transport ‘Mafiya’ alleging that they were the persons responsible for creating hindrances in realization of the road tax. The statement made in the First Information Report, would indicate that the petitioner has raised suspicion against the transport ‘Mafiya’ naming some of the persons who are office bearers of the said Transport Association who had allegedly threatened the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the filing of annexure-2 does not under any circumstance make him liable for the offences aforesaid and cognizance taken under the aforesaid sections would not be applicable to the petitioner. It is true that as far as Sections 147, 148, 337, 353, 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it cannot be by any stretch of imagination be said to be the basis of holding the petitioner guilty for offences aforesaid as the the petitioner was responsible for any of those acts as mentioned in the First Information Report. The allegation is confined to the fact that the petitioner was not able to identify the miscreants and he has not changed his statement but merely said that he cannot identify the culprits. In my opinion, cognizance could not have been taken for the offences under which it has been taken and, therefore, I find that the order taking cognizance is incorrect and unjustified as the petition filed by the petitioner does 3 not constitute an offence under the Sections aforesaid. If at a later stage the Court finds the petitioner guilty of an offence as defined under the Indian Penal Code, the Court on the basis of an application filed on behalf of prosecution may take steps in that direction however, as far as the impugned order is concerned, it cannot be upheld on the basis of the facts aforesaid. I therefore, quash the order of cognizance dated 11.8.2009. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)