DULARCHAND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 15.2.2005 passed by Sri P.C. Pandey, J.M. Ist Class, Hilsa, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 89-C 2 of 2002, (T.R. No. 1677 of 2003) by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner had lodged a first information report bearing Chandi P.S. Case No. 370 of 2001 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown for kidnapping his son for murder. The police after investigation submitted final report as "case false". It further appears that the Officer-in-charge of Chandi Police Station then filed a complaint (Case No. 89-C 2 of 2002) in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa (Nalanda) for taking action under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the Court of Sri P.C. Pandey, J.M. Ist Class, Hilsa for disposal. The petitioner then filed a petition for discharging him from the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the trial is a summons trial and in a summons trial. there is no provision of discharge. He accordingly by the impugned order rejected the prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa in Chandi P.S. Case No. 370/2001 (Annexure-3) would show that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the final report submitted by the I.O., on the other hand, after going through the case diary, he found sufficient material against four accused persons named therein and took cognizance under Section 364/34, IPC against them and transferred the case to the Court of Sri R. Ranjan. J.M. Hilsa for commitment of the case to the Court of Session and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had given any false information to the police or falsely charged any person and committed any offence under Sections 182 and 211, IPC and thus the impugned order should be set aside.