PRADEEP JAISAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. B. Ojha, learned senior advocate for the opposite party no.2. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the State of Bihar.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara in Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 438 of 2016 by which he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das, learned advocate for the petitioner that from the averments made in the written report submitted by the informant-opposite party no.2, even if the entire allegations are believed to be true at their face value, no cognizable offence is made out. He submitted that the Officer-in-Charge of Ara Nawada Police Station has illegally instituted first information report (for short 'FIR') against the petitioner and others and took up investigation little realizing that the allegations made in the written report would not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged. He contended that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.