PARAS ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', in short) for quashing the First Information Report including investigation in Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2002 instituted for the offences under Sections 28 and 35 of the Arms Act, then pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari at East Champaran.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that Mufassil P.S. Case No. 100 of 2001 under Arms Act was filed by petitioner No. 1, Paras Roy, against one Shankar Rai alleging therein that while he and petitioner No. 2, Rejeshwar Roy, were guarding the mango crops Shankar Rai with three others came and indulged into criminal activities and, on protest, Shankar Rai fired upon him which misfired. Shankar Rai started fleeing away but he fell down and the petitioners caught him at which he left behind country made pistol and fled away. After investigation the police filed the final report at Annexure-2, holding that the allegations were found not to be true at which the Superintendent of Police had ordered for filing of the final report, also directing to file charge-sheet against petitioner No. 1. On such order having been received the final report was submitted. It may be mentioned that as per the final form so submitted, no charge-sheet was submitted against petitioners No. 1 or 2. Thereafter, on a supplementary petition filed by the petitioners the protest petition was treated to be complaint and, after enquiry the learned Magistrate though did not find the allegation of recovery of country made pistol to have been made out, summoned Shankar Rai directing to face trial under Sections 380/511 of the Penal Code and ordered issuance of summons. It will appear that thereafter on the statement of one Ganga Roy, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2002 was registered against the petitioners on 17.1.2002, relating to the same case but alleging that in course of investigation the informant (petitioner No. 1) and other witnesses had supported the allegations against Shankar Rai but Shankar Rai had also placed his defence claiming as to why a false case was instituted against him, also noting that the country made pistol that was produced by the petitioners, on examination, was found to be not operative, hence Paras Roy had falsely implicated Shankar Rai. The case was registered under Sections 28 and 35 of the Arms Act.

(3.) In this case learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor have been heard and the case is being disposed of at this stage.