MASO KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND 7 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing an order dated 3.12.1985 passed by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate Whereby he has stayed the further proceeding of Imamganj P.S. Case No. 25/85 registered under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 342and 302/34of the Indian Penal Code on 11.5.85 against the O.P. nos. 2 to 8 and directed the Addl. Public Prosecutor to hand over the case diary to the Inspector of Police of Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) for making further investigation into the case. The facts which led to filing of this application, in short, are that on the basis of a fardbeyan given by the petitioner, the aforesaid Imamganj police case was registered. The police after full investigation submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons i.e. o.p. nos. 2 -8.

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid charge -sheet, the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against o.p. nos. 2 -8 vide order dated 24.8.85 which is annexure -1 appended to this application.

(3.) It appears that the State Government directed the Criminal Investigation Department to make further investigation into the matter and on 30.11.1985 the Inspector of Police, C.I. D. filed two separate petitions in the court to direct the Addl. Public Prosecutor to hand over the case diary to the C.I.D. for further investigation and to stay the further proceedings in the court, From annexure -2, it appears that the learned Magistrate directed the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. to move the Sessions Judge, in this matter as cognizance has already been taken. It further appears that on 3.12.1985, the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. again filed two separate petitions for staying the further proceeding as the investigation is going on and on the same day the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, directed the Addl. Public Prosecutor to hand over the original case diary to the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. and stayed the further proceeding of the case. That order has been challenged in this Court.