ABDUL AZIZ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous application is directed against the order dated 7.12.2000 passed in Tr. No. 1355 of 2000 arising out of Bagaha RS. Case No. 226 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha whereby and whereunder the learned court below has dismissed the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner of the offences under sections 147, 420, 466 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code besides for quashing the entire criminal proceeding.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that in Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 112/96 registered under sections 323, 341, 324, 337, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code three accused persons, namely, Gul Bahar Mian, Sanaullah Ansari and Sabir Khan, were enlarged on bail by this Court. On 7.9.1998 the case was fixed for commitment and on the said date a petition under section 317 Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused persons which was rejected by the court and warrant of arrest were issued. On 28.7.1999 the said accused persons appeared in the court and applied for bail, the accused persons remanded to jail custody. However, on 29.7.1999 the informant of this case came to know from his brother Ramashish Yadav that the real accused Sabir Khan was in service at Panipat and in his place someone has impersonated himself as Sabir Khan and remanded to jail custody. It is stated that a petition to this effect was filed by the informants brother Ramashish Yadav and the informant also lodged the First Information Report. It is alleged that the accused persons in connivance with each other duped the court in order to secure bail. The accused Jabbar Sah has impersonated himself as Sabir Khan.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the supplementary charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner without any evidence against him. He submitted that neither during the first investigation nor during so called further investigation any material came before the Investigating Officer to suggest any complicity of the petitioner for the alleged offences. According to him, the accused persons, who were examined by the police, did not make any statement implicating the petitioner. He further contended that the cognizance of the offences is barred under section 195 Cr.P.C. since no complaint was filed by the court concerned. As such, according to him, the continuation of the present criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court and thus, fit to be quashed. In support of this, he has placed reliance in the case of Gopalkrishna Menon and anor. V/s. D. Raja Reddy and anor., reported in AIR 1983 S.C. 1053.