IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57435 of 2007 BIRENDRA KUMAR BIMAL SON OF SRI RAM BAHADUR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TENUA, P.S. SINGHIA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI MADAN MOHAN TIWARI, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, SUB INSPECTOR, KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN POLICE STASTION, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----------- 7. 3.11.2010. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.8.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul at Benipur in Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No.128 of 2003. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 452, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Short fact of the case is that an F.I.R. on the basis of fardbeyan of one Lalia Devi was recorded vide Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No.128 of 2003 on 23.11.2003 for the offences under Sections 452, 447, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x)(xi) 2 of the SC/ST act. It was alleged by the informant that while she was smoking Biri in the night and his daughter was sleeping on a cot, accused Jibach Sah and another intruded into her house and poured acid upon the informant as well as his daughter. After receiving injury, alarm was raised, thereafter, accused persons fled away. Subsequently, she was carried to hospital. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Lalia Devi, an F.I.R. was registered. During investigation, it transpired that besides other accused person Jitendra Sah was also involved in the crime. After conducting thorough investigation, police submitted charge sheet on 31.7.2007 against five accused persons including one Jitendra Sah @ Birendra Sah, son of Bahadur Sah. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of the offence. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. At the very outset, I may indicate that despite the fact that in the charge sheet, there is no 3 specific name as Birendra Kumar Bimal, the petitioner has filed the present petition. At the time of argument, it was submitted by Shri Durganand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner has been made accused with the alias name of Jitendra Sah. It has been argued that neither the petitioner is having any alias name as Jitendra Sah nor his father’s name is Bahadur Sah. It has been submitted that petitioner’s father’s name is Ram Bahadur Sah. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was made accused as per the instance of one Pradeep, who was in inimical term with this petitioner. It has further been submitted that Pradeep had also implicated the petitioner on earlier occasion. On the sole ground that he is not Jitendra Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allowing the prosecution in the present case, will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court and as such it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. In this case, earlier case diary was called for. I have heard Smt. Indu Bala 4 Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the strength of averment made in the case diary, has submitted that the petitioner was having alias name as Jitendra Sah, which was verified during the investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has specifically referred to paragraph-194 of the case diary. In ordinary course, it was not at all required for this Court to examine the case diary, however, since learned counsel for the petitioner had emphatically submitted that in the entire case diary, there is nothing against this petitioner, this Court, an exceptional case, was persuaded to examine the case diary. I myself have examined the entire case diary. After going through the entire case diary, the court is of the opinion that the police, after investigation, had rightly submitted charge sheet against accused Jitendra Sah @ Birendra Kumar. Since Shri Durganand Jha has submitted at bar that this petitioner i.e. Birendra Kumar Bimal has been made accused with the alias name of Jitendra Sah, I have examined the case diary. After going through 5 N.H./ the case diary, court is of the opinion that prima facie this petitioner is the same person, who has been charge sheeted by the police. Moreover, that question can well be examined during the trial. After examining the case diary, the court is of the opinion that while taking cognizance of offence, learned Magistrate has committed no error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. Keeping in view the fact that occurrence had taken place long back in the year 2003, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case and take each and every steps so that the case may come to a logical end without any further delay. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Office is directed to remit back the case diary to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)