Tirbeni Prasad Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32646 of 2012 ====================================================== Tribeni Prasad Sharma, son of Late Naimchu Prasad Sharma, resident of village and P.O. makduma, P.S. Amapur, District Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-04-2015 Heard Sri Rajendra Narayan, learned senor counsel, who was assisted by Sri Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Matloob Rab, learned A.P.P. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.4.2012, passed in Araria P.S. Case No.283 of 2010. By the said order learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Araria, has taken cognizance of offences under Section 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Sri Narayan, learned senior counsel, assailing the order of cognizance submits that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor during investigation even iota of evidence was collected showing involvement of the petitioner, even then,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32646 of 2012 (8) dt.09-04-2015 2/2 Police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate in a perfunctory manner has passed the order of cognizance.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner repeatedly insisted that in the case diary there is nothing, however, he accepts that in the present case more than Crores of public money was misappropriated. However, according to learned senior counsel for the petitioner there is no material to show involvement of the petitioner. He accepts that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged against the District Magistrate, D.D.C. etc. On perusal of the order of cognizance, apparently the court does not find any error warranting interference with the same. Since charge sheet was already submitted in which petitioner was forwarded as an accused, I do not find any defect in passing the order of cognizance by the learned Magistrate accepting the police report.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T