1. The application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Begusarai Town RS. case no. 274 of 2000 dated 16.9.2000 registered under sections 406/490/467/468/471/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Before giving the facts of the case it may be mentioned that petitioner filed Cr. Misc. no. 32733 of 2001 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.5.2002. The petitioner has filed a fresh application for quashing on 14.10.2003 vide Cr. Misc. no. 28734 of 2003. This application was also dismissed for non-prosecution by order of this Court dated 6.5.2003. The petitioner filed a restoration application vide Cr. Misc. no. 18504 of 2004 which was restored on 12.7.2004. Accordingly, this matter is now being finally disposed of.

3. The petitioner is an advocate of the High Court and he is seeking for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding on the ground that after investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the said offence final from was submitted and he was not sent up for trial in R.C. case no. 36(S)/1996. The contentions raised by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are two folds.

4. Firstly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would be subjected to double jeopardy and secondly, the lodging of the First Information Report (by Fudan Yadav) is violative of the mandate of law as settled by the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony V/s. State of Kerala and Others reported in 2001(6) SCC 181.

5. In order to meet the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to give the brief facts of both the cases.

6. Fudan Yadav, who is informant of Begusarai P.S. case no. 274 of 2000 dated 16.9.2000 lodged First Information Report in which he has stated that he was in custody in the Mandal Jail at Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1996 for about 7 1/2 years. It is alleged by him, that one Kapil Deo Mahto 4 to 5 years prior to lodging of this case would come to the jail and take money for the purpose of obtaining bail for those persons who were lodged in the jail. Kapildeo also came in contact with Fudan Yadav and asked him for Rs. 5,000.00 and assured him that he would obtain bail for him. After about a month Kapildeo informed Fudan Yadav that he has been granted bail. When Fudan Yadav arranged for his bailors and appeared in the Court below, he came to know that the bail order was a forged one and he also came to know that Kapildeo Mahto would take money from the persons in jail and file a bail application through Kashinath Choudhary and Ajay Thakur, both of whom were practising in the High Court a? Advocates. On these facts the First Information Report was registered. Three persons were made accused in this case namely Kapil Deo Mahto, Kashi Nath Choudhary and Ajay Kumar Thakur.

7. Before filing of the aforesaid First Information Report, earlier a First Information Report was lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation. On 26.7.1997 in R.C. case no. 36(5) of 1997, a Bench of the High Court, had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter with respect to the forged orders which were obtained from the High Court. Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the order of this Court in which several advocates as well as Fudan Yadav, Kapil Prasad Singh @ Kapildeo Singh and this petitioner were made accused. The order of this Court were passed with respect to Cr. Misc. no. 8512 of 1995, Cr. Misc. no. 8519 of 1995 and Cr. Misc. 9024 of 1995. All the cases were filed for granting of bail to Fudan Yadav.

8. In view of the contentions of the petitioner the records of the case diary of R.C. case no. 36(S)/1997 were called for by the Court hearing this application and the diary has been submitted to this Court and, as such, I have gone through the diary of the case and the following facts have emerged after reading the diary.

9. One Fudan Yadav fi