IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36714 of 2011 Phooleshwar Das Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2 09.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR including investigation of Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case no.86 of 2010 registered under Section 420 of the IPC and 7 of the EC Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he happens to be a PDS Dealer. It is also admitted fact that on the alleged date he, after taking delivery, from FCI godown was carrying the food grains to his shop over bullock cart in midst of way the cart has gone out of order and so, the bags laden thereupon was unloaded and shifted to the house of Satyanarayan Chauraisiya for temporary storage and the said fact was brought to the notice of local Mukhiya. Before it was to be carried to his shop, the supply officials conducted raid and seized the items. To support the same Annexure-3 has been, copy of information sent to the Mukhiya has been referred. Whether the court exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can quash FIR followed with investigation that too having its nascent stage. The topic has come up times without number for adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the settle law is, the High Court should 2 refrain from quashing when the materials, evidence are yet to be collected. For better appreciation it should be quoted as reported in 2006(1) SCC (Cri.) page 324 at para-2 it has been observed: “By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed FIR No.55 dated 27.04.2001. The FIR was registered against four respondents for having committed theft of cheel logs from the forest of Kukanet. In sum and substance, the allegation is of illegal felling of trees and theft of the same from the forest. Curiously, the High Court by entering into the factual arena has passed the impugned order quashing the FIR. Such a course is wholly impermissible. The High Court acted mere as an investigating agency at a stage when the FIR was under investigation. At this stage, we wish to say no more lest it may prejudice the parties”. In another decision on this score happens to be (2007)14 SCC 497 at para-3 it has been held: “Having heard the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified at this stage to examine the matter and quash the police investigation, which was pending against the respondent Laxmi Dhaul”. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner at the present moment appears to be premature consequent thereupon is found to be non-maintainable. Petition is rejected. However, if so advised, petitioner may file the relevant documents before the Investigating Authority in support of his plea and innocence. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)