Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kapar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44774 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2012 Thana- Sitamarhi District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kapar Son of Shree Jhagru Kapar, Resident of Bathnaha Goti, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ganga Prasad Bimal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey (APP) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

08-09-2017 Heard Sri Ganga Prasad Bimal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer to quash an order dated 21-07-2014 passed in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012. By the said order, the learned Special Judge, Sitamarhi, on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet, has summoned the petitioner, as accused, under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Sri Bimal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and even in first charge-sheet, he was not made accused, however;

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44774 of 2014(2) dt.08-09-2017 2/2 subsequently through supplementary charge-sheet, maliciously the police has forwarded the petitioner as accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of cognizance dated 21-07-2014, in view of malicious act of the police, is liable to be set aside, whereas, Sri Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer submits that during further investigation, complicity of the petitioner had surfaced and thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted and the learned Special Judge, on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet, has passed the order impugned.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials on record, including the impugned order dated 21-07-2014. After examining the same, the Court is of the opinion that since order of cognizance has been passed in conformity with the police report, there is no error warranting interference.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T