Vijay Kumar Singh, Vs the State of Bihar

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....the office after the transfer from the office of the sub-divisional officer, biharsharif to the office in sadar, biharsharif. it is said that one satish chandra rai reported that the petitioner had handed over the charge of vourchers for the period 2004-05, 2 2005-06 and 2006-07.3.at the first instance this case was investigated and the police, at paragraph 16 has stated that it appears to be a case of mistake of facts. however, on the instructions of the superintendent of police, the charge was submitted and eventually cognizance taken under section 408 of the indian penal code.4.learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the statement of satish chandra rai without even holding a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the circumstances in which the petitioner had not handed over charge or without asking for an explanation from the petitioner, this first information report has been instituted. the facts that have been mentioned in the first information report could well be a subject matter of a departmental enquiry, if the officers had come to the conclusion that charge was not handed over. it is not the case that the petitioner has misappropriated the documents from the office of the sub-divisional officer, sadar, therefore, i do not see how the court would have concluded that an offence is made out under section 408 of the indian penal code.5.the submission of the charge sheet also smacks of malice inasmuch as once the investigating officer had come to the conclusion that it was the case of mistake of facts, the reversion of the finding indicates that the matters were settled somewhere at the top. in any event, the order taking cognizance dated 15.5.2007 in bihar p.s. case no. 245 of 2006 pending before the chief judicial magistrate, nalanda is quashed.6.this application is allowed.