IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.1015 OF 2008 HIRA LAL JHA, SON OF LATE JAIDEO JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAULI, P.O. MAHPUR, P.S. BOCHAHAN, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR....................PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, JAI NAGAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 8. OFFICER INCHARGE, BASOPATTI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 9. VINAY KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA……………………..……RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, G. A. No.III Mr. Prabhat Kumar, A.C. to G.A. No.III *** 5. 16.02.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner, who was at the relevant time Sub-Divisional Police Officer at Jai Nagar in the district of Madhubani, has filed this writ application for quashing of the first information report in connection with Basopatt P.S. Case No.165/08 registered against him under - 2 - Sections 384 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that even if the allegation made in the first information report is accepted as true to the hilt, no criminal offence is made out against him and therefore, the initiation of the criminal case against him under Section 384 read with Section 420 of the I.P.C. is an abuse of process of law. The first information report was placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. From the contents of the F.I.R. it appears that criminal case was instituted against some dealers of the public distribution system under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and other sections of the I.P.C. The case was investigated and a report was submitted by the Investigating Officer to the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter supervised the case and submitted his supervision note in which on the alleged statement of the Block Supply Officer, who was the informant of the case, held the case as untrue. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that he did this for some oblique motive or for illegal financial gain. - 3 - Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the case was supervised by the Superintendent of Police, who found the case to be true and directed the Investigating officer to submit charge sheet which was submitted. He submits that even if the petitioner had given a wrong supervision note, contrary to the materials on record, with mala fide intention, at best the same may amount to misconduct and the petitioner could be proceeded against departmentally for the same, but by no stretch imagination, the same can be treated as making out a criminal offence so as to launching of the criminal case against him under the aforesaid sections. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which the facts of the case have been narrated. However, nothing is stated in the counter affidavit as to in what manner a criminal offence under Section 384 read with Section 420 of the Indian penal Code is made out against the petitioner on the basis of his alleged act of submitting a false supervision note. It is apparent that as per - 4 - allegation in the F.I.R., petitioner did commit misconduct and submitted a wrong report contrary to the materials available on record. But it is also clear that the same cannot be termed as criminal offence in terms of Section 384 of the I.P.C. In these circumstances, this Court finds that launching of the prosecution against the petitioner under section 384 read with section 420 of the I.P.C. on the basis of alleged charges of submitting a wrong supervision note is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the same is fit to be quashed and it is hereby quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)