PANDEY PRADIP NATH ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Jitendra Nath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate's Association.

(2.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the FIR registered on the statement of respondent No. 3 as informant under Sections 466, 468, 471, 120B, IPC being Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 485/2003, G.R. No. 2517/2003 against the petitioner on the ground that no case is made out under any of the sections so far as this petitioner is concerned.

(3.) RELIANCE was also placed upon 2004 Cr LJ 3626, in which cognizance was quashed on the ground that case was filed with ulterior motive. Reliance was also placed upon 2003 (2) East Cr Cases 255 (SC), wherein it was held that when FIR lodged does not disclose commission of cognizable offence then the case is not within the purview to investigate the same. The learned counsel drew my attention to para 19 of the foresaid case law, which is quoted hereinbelow :