ORDER

The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.1.2011 passed by Sri Nirmalendu Kumar Lall, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Nawadah, in Inquiry Case No. 1 of 2009, arising out of Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2009/35 of 2009. By the said order the learned court below disposed of the miscellaneous case i.e. Inquiry Case No. 1 of 2009 and rejected the prayer of the petitioner that Dinesh Yadav was also called with alias name as Uma Yadav and held that two different sons of Bachu Yadav i.e. the petitioner and one another were involved in the alleged occurrence and directed the petitioner to remain present in original sessions case along with others for taking next step in the case as an accused on the next date.

2. Short fact of the case is that on the fardbyan of one Kamlesh Yadav / opposite party no. 2 an F.I.R. vide Hisua P.S. Case No. 116 of 2006 was registered against number of accused persons including two sons of Bachu Yadav, namely, Uma Yadav and Dinesh Yadav. F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 307 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, after registration of F.I.R., since the victim died, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was subsequently added. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused persons including two sons of Bachu Yadav with Bachu Yadav. From the pleadings it is evident that one of the sons of Bachu Yadav, namely, Dinesh Yadav surrendered on 18.1.2007 with the alias name Uma Yadav and he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, by an order of this court dated 3.9.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26431 of 2007, Dinesh Yadav was directed to be released on bail. During investigation it further appears that processes under Sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against another son of Bachu Yadav. However, after release on bail, Dinesh Yadav filed a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate indicating therein that Dinesh Yadav and Uma Yadav is the same person and since Dinesh Yadav with alias name Uma Yadav has already been released on bail, processes issued under Sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. against Uma Yadav be recalled. It further appears that earlier an inquiry was directed to be conducted by the S.D.J.M. regarding the identity and the learned Magistrate had decided the same, which was assailed by the informant vide Cr. Revision No. 473 of 2009. This court by order dated 8.4.2009 passed in Cr. Revision No. 473 of 2009 quashed the said enquiry. It is pertinent to notice that after the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court vide Cr. Revision No. 1025 of 2007 on the point of identity stating that in the F.I.R. the petitioner was not named and he was misidentified as Uma Yadav. The said revision petition was permitted to be withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the plea relating to identity at appropriate stage by its order dated 6.12.2007 and in that event, the court below was required to enquire into the matter and come to a conclusion regarding identity after such inquiry as deemed fit and proper by the court below. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure - ‘6’ to the present petition. After the case was committed to the court of sessions, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying therein that inquiry be conducted regarding the identity of the petitioner Binesh Yadav and Dinesh Yadav as Uma Yadav to ascertain their involvement in the alleged occurrence. On the said petition, an inquiry vide Inquiry Case No. 1 of 2009 was initiated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2009 / 35 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge during inquiry allowed the parties to adduce evidences and finally disposed of the miscellaneous case and rejected the claim of the petition