IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12752 of 2008 AMARJIT KUMAR @ KARI SON OF PAVITRA SINGH @ RAM PAVITRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FAIZULPUR, P.S. BIRPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ….. ……Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp.Party. ----------- 2. 23.6.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.11.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.175 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 384, 386, 387 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this petition, submits that during whole investigation not even single independent witness or affected persons had supported the prosecution case. He submits that only police officials are witnesses. In the present case, F.I.R. was lodged on self statement of a police officer. Shri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the petition, submits that there is no restriction in lodging the first information report on the basis of self statement of a police officer. I have also examined the F.I.R., which indicates that after receiving telephonic message, the police rushed to the place 2 of occurrence where the accused persons were assembled for demanding rangdari on the instruction of an accused, who was inside the jail. Moreover, in this case, order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2007. The petitioner has not made an exceptional case warranting this Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in his favour. I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)