Md. Sahabuddin @ Shahbuddin vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 18-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, who has appeared through virtual mode.

The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 24.03.2015, passed in CIS No. 594 of 2015, arising out of Thakurganj (Sukhani) P.S. Case No. 183 of 2013, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Kishanganj.

As per the allegation, one Baban Singh, SHO of Thakurganj (Sukhani) P.S. has recorded his self statement on 14.08.2013, that, on same date at about 08:30 AM, he received a secret information that some criminals were coming by two tempos loaded with fertilizers from Thakurganj Bazar to carry it from India to Nepal. Thereafter, informant along with the police party reached at Jamuna Pool, where he saw two tempos coming from south side by L.R.P road and upon seeing the police, whereafter they fled away leaving the tempos, the informant seized the tempos bearing registration no. (BR37A-3823) tempo Mahendra Company loaded with 15 bags of Urea fertilizer, as also the second tempo, which was without registration No. ( Bajaj Company) loaded with 5 bags of Krimko Urea and total quantity of 20 bags of Krimko Urea, which contained 50 Kg urea in each bags, were also seized.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the case came to be registered for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide owner of the seized tempo bearing Registration No. BR37A-3823 and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 414, which is a punishable offence for assisting in concealment of stolen property would not apply. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner is the bonafide owner of the auto rickshaw, in question, it cannot be stated to be a stolen property and as far as the fertilizer is concerned, the cognizance has not been taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the said recovered urea was stolen property, as no case was registered for the alleged urea being the stolen one. Moreover, the allegation with respect to the alleged black marketing was found to be false and no cognizance came to be taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Moreover, there was no shortage anywhere in the shop, so that, the said urea can be said to be a stolen property. It has further been submitted that a report was called for from the court below regarding the stage of the case, which has been received on 03.06.2025 a perusal whereof shows that, there is no progress in the case in the court below. The FIR alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 414 of IPC. The investigation revealed that there was no material to suggest commission of offence with respect to 414 of IPC, rather a charge sheet came to be filed under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Learned Magistrate did not take cognizance under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, rather he took cognizance under Section 414 of IPC, in which the petitioner was not charge sheeted.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Considering the nature of allegation and the finding arrived at by the police as well as non taking of cognizance in charge sheeted Sections, this Court finds that the present prosecution against the petitioner should not continue and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.03.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Kishanganj, in connection with CIS No. 594 of 2015 arising out of Thakurganj (Sukhani) P.S. Case No. 183 of 2013 is hereby quashed with respect to the petitioner only. However, further proceeding with respect to other co-accused person shall continue.

This application is allowed.