IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6777 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR, son of Late Baidyanath Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Dalpatti, Nayabazar, P.S. – Lakhisarai, Town and District – Lakhisarai. --------------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shankar Prasad Sah, sonof Sri Hari Lal Shaw, Prof. of M/s Shankar Krishi Kendra, village – Salempur, P.S. – Suryagraha, District – Lakhisarai. ------------------- Opposite Parties. ****** For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Vinayak, Adv. For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ram Jiban Pd. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP. ****** 04. 30.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and Opposite Party. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 05.12.2006 passed in complaint case no. 212(C) of 2006 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant facts for consideration is that opposite party got a Truck through petitioner accused and took transport of 90 quintals of wheat to Asonsole. The petitioner having transport agency provided a Truck bearing no. JH-11A – 5719 and accordingly, consignment was loaded and dispatched for destination, but, the said 90 quintals of wheat did not reach their destination. The opposite party complainant started inquiry through the petitioner who initially avoided stated that whatever was loaded is lost. On further inquiry, the complainant found that Truck number and license number of the driver was also 2 fake. No doubt from Annexure – 3, a receipt issued by the petitioner relating to transportation of consignment of particular vehicle. It appears that there is some note at the foot of the document that subsequent responsibility will of owner and driver of the vehicle. In the instant case, it appear that both found fake on inquiry and opposite party by filing supplementary affidavit as annexed, an information obtained from the concerned authorities in exercise of its powers under Right to Information Act. The matter is at very initial stage. Some more evidence is required to finally determine the fate of the case at this stage, it is not proper to quash the impugned order or the subsequent proceeding without causing any prejudice to further defence of the petitioner, this application stands dismissed. The court below is directed to proceed expeditiously and conclude the proceeding pending before it at the earliest. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)