SHIV RATAN PRASAD @ SHIW Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) /1/2013 Page 55 Suman Kumar Verma Versus Union Of India 1 This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.2.94 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in case No. 90(2) of 1992 arising out of Gardanibagh PS case no. 1006/1991 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code (in short as IPC) against the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that petitioner, Shiv Ratan Prasad @ Shiw Ratan Pd. Singh filed a written report before Officer -in -charge, Gardanibagh PS on 18.12.1991 stating therein that theft of departmental material like channel of no. 4 and shutlering plate was committed by unknown persons. The informant and others searched the materials but could not find the same. On the basis of aforesaid written of petitioner/informant the police registered Gardanibagh PS case no. 1006/1991 dated 18.12.91 u/ss 379 and 411 of the IPC and took up the investigation. During investigation the police recovered the said stolen materials from the Kabarikhana of accused Baidnath Yadav for which seizure list was prepared. It appears that police after investigation submitted final report dated 1.2.92. In the meantime, petitioner/informant filed protest petition vide protest -cum -complaint case no. 417 (C) of 1992 against accused Baidnath Yadav before the CJM, Patna. Petitioner/complainant produced evidence during the enquiry and the learned Magistrate after enquiry found prima facie case u/ss 379 and 411 of the IPC against accused Baidnath Yadav and, accordingly, issued summons against him to face the trial. It is said that final report submitted by the police was accepted and on the basis of the prosecution report filed u/s 182/211 of the IPC learned CJM by order dated 12.2.92 issued show cause notice to the petitioner and ultimately by order dated 24.2.94 he took cognizance against the petitioner/informant u/s 182 of the IPC.

(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that continuation of the present prosecution of the petitioner u/s 182 of the IPC is illegal in view of the fact that in the criminal case Baidnath Yadav has been convicted by the learned Magistrate. His further submission is that after conviction of Baidnath Yadav it cannot be accepted that information given by the petitioner/informant was false and false to the knowledge of the informant.