JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner Shri Rajkesh Bhuyan has filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) for quashing an FIR dated 17.05.2013 and the Charge-Sheet dated 31.05.2013 lodged by Shri Kashi Nath Sarkar with the concerned police station. The FIR was registered as Guwahati Railway P.S. Case No. 49/2013 under Sections 380/411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The corresponding G.R. Case No. 5906/2013 was registered on the basis of the FIR.

3. The FIR unfolds that when Kashi Nath Sarkar was travelling by 15657 UP Ex SDAH to Guwahati on 16.05.2013 in AC-II Tier D No. 30 PNO No. 651 8623181, two passengers namely, Sakil Islam and Rajkesh Bhuyan were found sitting on berth No. 29. After crossing Rangia station, the passengers opened his bag and committed theft of his camera and Rs. 5,000/-. After frisking both the passengers, the camera of the informant Kashi Nath Sarkar was recovered, but the money could not be recovered. The other passengers assaulted both the passengers, who allegedly committed the theft.

4. The charge-sheet reflects that the camera was recovered from the bag of the co-passengers Sakil Islam and Rajkesh Bhuyan. A prima facie case was well established against Md. Sakil Islam and Shri Rajkesh Bhuyan and charge-sheet was laid under Section 380/411 IPC. Copies of the lower court record (LCR in short) reflects that trial has not yet commenced after charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and his co-accused.

5. I have considered the submissions at the Bar.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress in his argument that the petitioner was recruited and selected after following a selection process conducted by the Government, in the Environment & Forest Department in the year 2016 for the post of Forester Grade-I. On 16.05.2013 he was travelling on 15657 UP Express to Guwahati in an AC-II Tier Coach. After the train left Rangia Station, one co-passenger namely Shri Kashi Nath Sarkar suddenly found his Nikon Camera and cash of Rs. 5,000/-missing from his bag. The petitioner and Md. Sakil Islam were held accountable for the disappearance of the afore-mentioned articles, which led to a heated verbal exchange. Finally this FIR was lodged against the petitioner and Md. Sakil Islam. After investigation charge-sheet was laid and the trial Magistrate, in a routine manner took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the petitioner vide order dated 02.08.2013. The case was then transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup for adjudication. The petitioner was not aware of the pendency of this case as he did not receive any summons. As the petitioner was undergoing training as a Forester, he moved an application through his Lawyer on 03.12.2016 with prayer for dispensation of his personal appearance, in view of his ongoing training which was allowed by the learned trial Court and the next date was fixed on 06.02.2017. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2013 as the order was passed mechanically by the learned Magistrate without taking note of the fact that the FIR and the charge-sheet prima facie lacked foundational facts for registration under Section 380/411 IPC. No case under Section 411 IPC can exist against the principal offender, but a case under Section 411 IPC exists against persons who are receivers of stolen property.

7. It is averred that the learned Trial Court has overlooked that the final step in investigation, namely, the formation of opinion regarding the existence of a case to place the accused on trial should invariably be of the Officer-in-Charge (OC in short) of the concerned PS, but in this case charge-sheet was laid by the ASI Dinesh Medhi. The charge-sheet was not in conformity with law as the Officer In-charge is under a stat