Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10451 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Pawan Kumar @ Babloo, Son of Ram Naresh Kunwar, Resident of Village – Mahmadpur, Gautam, Police Station - Nayagaon in the district of Begusarai. 2. Mukesh Kumar Rai, Son of Suresh Rai, Resident of Amarpur, Barauni, Police Station - Barauni in the District of Begusarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Abhisek Gaurav @ Prince, Son of Sri Anand Mohan Singh, Resident of Village – Sadanandpur, Police Station - Baliya in the district of Begusarai. At present resident of Mohalla – Shivpuri Pakariya, Police Station - Town in the district of Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11 20-04-2012 Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shyam Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 15.01.2008 passed by Sri Harish Chandra Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No.711(C) of 2007. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and summoned the petitioners. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10451 of 2008 (11) dt.20-04-2012 2 / 5 2 Short fact of the case is that the complainant alleged that he was forcibly taken by the accused persons on a Maruti Van and forcibly some document was got signed to show that the accused persons had given loan of Rs. 2,21,000/-. After filing of the complaint, enquiry was conducted and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offences, as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding submits that the complaint petition was filed maliciously and only with a view to create defence in a case in which the complainant of the present case was made accused by the petitioners’ side. It was further submitted, that almost on similar allegation, prior to filing of the present complaint, mother of the complainant had filed a complaint which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 624(C) of 2007, which was referred to Police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and as such, a case vide Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 120 of 2007 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] . In that case, Police during investigation, found that the allegation was falsely made by the complainant, and as such, Police submitted final report recommending prosecution Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10451 of 2008 (11) dt.20-04-2012 3 / 5 3 of the complainant of the said case, who was non-else, but the mother of the complainant of the present case. Sri Kumar further submits that earlier a cheque of Rs. 2,21,000/- was issued by the complainant of the present case in favour of the petitioners’ side, which on presentation before the Bank got dishonoured and for such allegation a complaint was filed by the petitioners’ side vide Complaint Case No. 2144(C) of 2006. That complaint case was also referred to the Police and it was registered as Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 407 of 2006 under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. While investigation in the said case was going on and almost at the stage of conclusion, complaint was filed by the mother of the present complainant on 04.04.2007, which was subsequently registered as Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 120 of 2007. In that case while Police was going to submit final report, before submission of the final report the present complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 vide Complaint Case No. 711(C) of 2007 almost on the similar allegation which was made in earlier complaint i.e. Complaint Case No. 624(C) of 2007 (Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 120 of 2007). After investigation in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 407 of 2006 Police submitted charge sheet on 27.05.2007 against complainant / opposite party Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10451 of 2008 (11) dt.20-04-2012 4 / 5 4 no. 2 and also his father. On aforesaid facts and circumstances it was submitted that prima facie the present complaint is palpably false and on such allegation the learned court below may not be allowed to proceed further and has been prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that though criminal case has been instituted against the petitioners, the petitioners in paragraph no. 14 of the present petition has prayed for quashing of the impugned order in the interest of justice. According to learned counsel for the complainant / opposite party no. 2, on such ground, the order of cognizance or proceeding may not be set aside. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, particularly the fact, that earlier complaint was filed by the mother of the present complainant in which Police found the case un-true and also recommended for prosecution of the mother of the present complainant for offence under [STATUTE] , the subsequent complaint which was filed by the opposite party no. 2 can be considered as malicious which requires interference at very Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10451 of 2008 (11) dt.20-04-2012 5 / 5 5 initial stage. On aforesaid facts an

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.