JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Railways.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for the following relief:

“That this is an application for quashing the cognizance order dated 03.01.2011 passed in R.P.F. S.M.I. 43 of 10/Tr. 809 of 2011 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 143 of the Railway Act, 1989.”

3. The allegation against the petitioner and another accused was of black marketeering of railway tickets. Against the petitioner, it is specific that on prior information, the petitioner being identified, when confronted, from his possession, one ticket in his name and five blank reservation slips were recovered. On the said complaint, the Court has taken cognizance on 03.1.2011, which is impugned in the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is only that there is suspicion that the petitioner was black marketeering of Railway tickets by buying tickets in his name but showing the age differently. Learned counsel submitted that such bald and mere suspicion cannot be the basis for lodging of a criminal case, moreso, for the reason that the ticket which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, was in his name and showed the date of birth, as was recorded in his Election Photo Identity Card, which was also recovered from him. Learned counsel submitted that when a ticket in the name of the petitioner showing his real date of birth was only recovered, there cannot be any criminal prosecution only by raising mere suspicion that he used to indulge in black marketeering by buying tickets in his name showing different age. Learned counsel submitted that possession of five reservation slips can in no way be the basis of a criminal prosecution.

5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the Railways submitted that the petitioner is suspected of black marketeering of tickets and, thus, he is required to face trial and further, that the cognizance taken by the Court below is justified. However, on a direct query of the Court as to what is the material to allege that the petitioner used to buy tickets by showing different age, as only one ticket in his name showing his correct age was recovered and only five blank reservation slips, learned counsel were not in a position to meet the query of the Court.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case for interference has been made out.

7. As has rightly been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation that the petitioner used to sell Railway tickets on the black market by buying the same in his name but showing different age, is too tenuous a ground to justify criminal action, moreso in the face of the fact that the only material recovered from his possession was a Railway ticket, that too, in the name of the petitioner himself and also showing his correct age based on the Election Photo Identity Card. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the same can in no way justify the launching of a criminal prosecution against the petitioner. The Court would only observe that initiation of a criminal proceeding against any person has serious penal consequences which cannot be so lightly set into motion. At the cost of repetition, what material has been recovered absolutely does not constitute or can be a basis for any criminal prosecution. Thus, only a bald reference that the petitioner used to deal in black marketeering of Railway tickets by buying tickets in his name by showing different age, without there being any material to corroborate or substantiate the same, clearly is an abuse of the process of the Court.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Har