SUKHDEO PRASAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. By order dated 29.2.2000, while admitting this case and issuing notice to opposite party No. 2, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. It is evident from the record of the case that the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons by committing fraud in the judicial proceeding has got an order of stay and as such none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the present case.

(2.) While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, in some and substance, has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. in Lalit Narain Mithila University Campus P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999. In paragraph-1 of the petition, it has been stated that the F.I.R. in Lalit Narain Mithila University Campus P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the entire petition, it is not clear as to whether after registering the F.I.R., police had submitted charge sheet or not and as to whether the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence or not. In absence of such specific pleading, it can be inferred that the petitioner has only prayed for quashing of F.I.R. that too while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since no proceeding was pending before the court below, it was not appropriate for the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In absence of pendency of any proceeding before the court below, I am of the view that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. I have examined the materials available on record and also the certified copy of F.I.R. in L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 92 of 1999. On perusal of F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-1 at page-13, it is evident that it was not a simple case under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 34 of I.P.C., but the present case was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It is evident that by making false affidavit and committing fraud the petitioner has got a favourable order of stay from this Court. This amount to commission of fraud and other offences during a judicial proceeding and same requires strict action.

(3.) In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 29.2.2000 stands automatically vacated.