Man Denies Being ‘Rajesh’ Named In IOC Pipeline-Theft Case; Patna HC Says Identity Dispute Must Go To Trial

Following a complaint that crude oil had spread near Mankatha Railway Station and that two valves had been fitted to an Indian Oil Corporation pipeline, a case was registered at Lakhisarai Police Station.

During investigation, apprehended co-accused allegedly identified the petitioner as “Rajesh” of Hazipur and implicated him in the alleged theft.

The petitioner maintained that he was Hari Kishore Rai of Muzaffarpur, not the person identified by the co-accused.

After a charge-sheet was filed, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Petroleum Pipelines Act, 1962, as amended in 2011.

The Sessions Court rejected the petitioner’s discharge prayer; he then sought to have that order set aside

The alleged offences were punishable under Sections 420, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Petroleum Pipelines Act, 1962, as amended in 2011.

The Court applied the principle that a disputed question of the accused’s identity, requiring factual determination, cannot be decided in the quashing proceedings and must be resolved at trial.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not identify a specific statutory provision governing the quashing jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s challenge rested on his assertion that he was not the “Rajesh” of Hazipur named by the co-accused, but Hari Kishore Rai of Muzaffarpur.

The Court treated that contention as a disputed identification fact, rather than a matter capable of resolution in the present proceedings.

Because the identity question could be tested and decided at trial, the Court accepted the IOC’s submission that it should not be determined while considering the petition.

It dismissed the petition challenging the Sessions Court’s rejection of discharge and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court.