Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This is an application for quashing the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in connection with Trial Case No. 116 of 2022 arising out of Belaganj P.S. Case No. 184 of 2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe, Gaya where cognizance for the offence punishable under section Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (P.O.A.) Act, 1989, against the appellant.

3. The crux of prosecution case is that on 02.07.2016 at around 11 A.M. the husband of respondent no.2 went to Gaya for some purchase, but he did not return till night, however the items purchased reached home through horse cart at around 3 P.M. The informant further stated that she enquired regarding whereabouts of her husband from the godown owner (appellant) telephonically who told that the victim did not come to his shop. It is further stated that on 03.07.2016 at around 6 A.M. some co-villagers called on her mobile-phone and gave the news that her husband was murdered, and his dead body is hanging on the “peepal tree” near Sonpur Surya Temple. The informant further alleged that one of the accused persons, namely, Mahendra Chaudhary, who happens to be the agnate of the deceased threatened the deceased for life because of the fact that the husband of the deceased was a witness in some land dispute of Mahendra Chaudhary. It is further alleged that the appellant and his munshi had also threatened the informant to clear the debt or to face dire consequences. On the basis of which, a formal F.I.R. bearing Belaganj P.S. Case No. 184 of 2016 dated 03.07.2016 was registered against the appellant herein and other coaccused persons.

4. Mr. Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that from the facial perusal of the FIR, in issue, no prima-facie case is made out against the appellant/accused. In support of his submission learned counsel while referring the FIR submitted that as the appellant/accused is the owner of a godown from where the husband of the informant was usually purchasing the good for his grocery shop and as such a sum of payment was due out of said business transactions, only for that reason, informant raised a suspicion against appellant as before couple of days of the present occurrence, appellant/accused asked for due payment to her deceased husband. It is submitted that the specific allegation through same FIR is raised against co-accused Mahendra Chaudhary out of land dispute, against whom police after investigating the matter, finding allegation true submitted charge-sheet in year 2016, itself, through charge-sheet No. 235 of 2016 dated 30.09.2016. It is pointed out that though through said charge-sheet police recorded the allegation appearing true against appellant/accused, also but investigation was kept open against him, whereafter detailed and thorough investigations finally through charge-sheet no. 328 of 2021 dated 06.09.2021, police by exonerating appellant/accused submitted final form against him.

5. It is also pointed out that appellant/accused was arrested during the course of investigation on 11.08.2021 and as such doubt cannot be raised regarding tampering of evidence or to influence witnesses as appellant was in judicial custody, to doubt investigation qua involvement of appellant/accused.

6. It is pointed out that the ld. trial court while taking cognizance deferring with police report as submitted aforesaid, relied upon para no. 10 and 13 and Supervision note of Dy. Superintendent of Police, Gaya, as available in case diary while taking cognizance against the appellant/accused.

7. It is also submitted by learned counsel that once the complainant/informant appears to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance etc. that too on the exclusive note of suspicion as it appears from the face of the FIR itself, the