RAJ ROUSHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 13th of February, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 182, 211, 427 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner stands further aggrieved by the same order by which the learned Court below has transferred the records of the protest petition to a Court of another Judicial Magistrate for trial and disposal of the said protest complaint case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance is bad inasmuch as the requirements contained in Section 195(a)(i) and (b)(i) have not been complied with. True it is that the police found the accusation which was levelled by the informant to be false and, therefore, recommended for initiation of proceeding under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as against him. However, such a recommendation could not have been acted upon by the learned Magistrate by straightway taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.