CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.345 OF 2001 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- MD. SADARUDDIN SON OF MD.ISLAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR, P.S.MEHSI,DISTT.EAST CHAMPARAN ------ PETITIONER Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.SAIRUL SAH 3.KETABUL SAH 4.USMAN SAH ALL SONS OF ALIRAJ SAH 5.RAZA ALAM SAH SON OF NOOR ALI SAH 6.HASAN RAZA SON OF RAZA ALAM SAH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR, P.S.MEHSI,DISTT.EAST CHAMPARAN. ….OPP.PARTIES ------ For the petitioner: None For the State: Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Today again when the case was called out none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Yesterday also none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on call and, as such, the case was adjourned for a day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. 2. I have heard Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the materials available on the record. 3. 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 29.9.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in N.F.Case No.1 of 2000. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner under sections 182 and 211 of 2 the Indian Penal Code. 3. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fard beyan of the petitioner a case Vide Mehsi P.S. Case No.62 of 1999 was registered on 1.8.1999 against opposite party nos.2 to 6 for the offences under sections 323, 324, 447, 307, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While investigation was going on, the petitioner (informant) apprehended that the police officials may not do justice with the investigation since the police was in collusion with the accused persons. He filed a protest petition on 18.8.1999 which was treated as Complaint Case No.C-51 of 2000. Subsequently on the protest petition a case was registered as Trial No.1146 of 2000 and it was transferred to the court of B.D.Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari for its disposal. After conducting enquiry the learned Magistrate by its order dated 23.5.2000 satisfied with the allegation that a prima facie case was made out against opposite party nos.2 to 6, took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused persons. In this case, the police after investigation submitted final form and also filed a prosecution report for prosecuting the petitioner. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate oblivious of the fact that on protest petition the learned Judicial Magistrate had already taken cognizance, proceeded with the case and took cognizance of the offences under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner by the impugned order and summoned him. 4. This court is of the opinion that once a protest petition was treated as complaint petition and enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons in Motihari P.S. Case 3 Patna High Court The 17th August,2010 Md.S/NAFR No.62 of 1999, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while proceeding with the prosecution report submitted by the police, had committed grave error and the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 29.9.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in N.F.Case No.1 of 2000 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)