LAWS(PAT)-2010-5-13

GAYA NAND CHAUPAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On May 03, 2010
GAYA NAND CHAUPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution in respect of Harijan P.S.Case No.23 of 1998 instituted under sec. 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 3(i)(ix)3(2)(VIII) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In sum and substance the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the first information report.

(2.) Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in the first information report there is no material showing involvement of the petitioner. On being asked by the court as to whether this petitioner is named accused or not, it was candidly admitted that the petitioner was not named in the first information report. Subsequently, the investigating officer approached the Magistrate for issuance of processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that without any material the investigating officer was not authorized to file such petition. He submits that for political motivation the present case was filed against the petitioner and action was taken by the investigating officer. During the hearing learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of no evidence against the petitioner, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution.

(3.) Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that in this case from the record it appears that no charge sheet was submitted. She further submits that in absence of pendency of any proceeding before the Magistrate, it would not be advisable for this court to interfere. She submits that this amounts to interference with investigation which, time without number, has been deprecated.