IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.1120 of 2011 Sitaram Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned SC-15. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR of Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No.17 of 2011 registered under Section 419, 420, 120B IPC and 7 of the EC Act drawn on the written report of Shivdhari Prasad Sah, Marketing Officer, Samastipur alleging inter alia that spurious cement was intercepted while it was in a way to a godown and so the driver, the khalasi, owner of godown Mahendra Rai, Manager Sitaram Sing (petitioner) and others were made an accused. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submitted that he happens to be owner of the truck in question which was taken on hire by J.M. Sale, Gola Road, Samastipur and so his complicity in the alleged crime has wrongly been shown. Also submitted that no offence under Section 7 of the EC Act is made out as cement happens to be decontrolled item. Also submitted that the owner of the godown in question happens to be Mahendra Rai and the same was taken on rent by Dilip Kumar and for that 2 Annexure-2 has been filed, (photocopy of Kirayanama). It has further been submitted that after having the 7 EC Act erased on its face, no offence under Section 419, 420 of the IPC is made out as there is no disclosure in the written report regarding presence of any of the victim. So, the cumulative effect happens that the present FIR is nothing but the nullity in the eye of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2010(7) SCC 667 at para-19 has observed “the High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true prospective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage”. For the present, I do not find the prayer of the petitioner acceptable as it happens to be at nascent stage of investigation and therefore, the matters are yet to come. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)