Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11954 of 2010 (4) dt.25-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11954 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Dr. Jatan Prasad @ Dr. Ramyatan Prasad S/O Late Ragho Prasad R/O Vill.-Patasiya,P.S.-Harnaut,Dist.-Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sharwan Prasad S/O Lala Prasad R/O Vill.-Chariyana, P.S.-Harnaut, Dist.-Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 though notice has already been served upon him. In my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.09.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Harnaut P.S. Case No. 196 of 2004 by which and whereunder he differed with the findings of the police and took cognizance for the offences under [STATUTE] against the petitioner and one co-accused, Sunita Devi. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11954 of 2010 (4) dt.25-09-2012 petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Sharwan Prasad filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 1105 C of 2004 against the petitioner and co-accused, Sunita Devi. The aforesaid complaint case was sent to concerned police station for institution of the first information report and investigation and subsequently, Harnaut P.S. Case No. 196 of 2004 under [STATUTE] was registered against the petitioner and co-accused, Sunita Devi. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and after due investigation police submitted final form showing the mistake of fact but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 16.09.2006 differed with the findings of the police and having relied upon paragraphs no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the case diary took cognizance of the above stated offences against the petitioner and co-accused, Sunita devi. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.10.2004, informant’s wife admitted in the clinic of the petitioner and gave birth to two children and out of the aforesaid children, one was healthy whereas another was weak. Furthermore, it is stated that on the assurance of the petitioner, the informant’s wife left the clinic along with her one child and when on 28.10.2004, informant came at the clinic of the petitioner and demanded his another child, the petitioner refused to hand over the second child of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11954 of 2010 (4) dt.25-09-2012 informant and accordingly, informant suspected that his second child either was sold or died on account of negligence of the petitioner and other accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation, witnesses including mother-in-law of the informant very clearly stated that when informant’s wife gave birth to twin children one child was very weak and after that at the request of mother-in-law of the informant, petitioner and co- accused took the aforesaid child to Biharsharif for better treatment but unfortunately, the aforesaid child could not be saved and after that at the request of mother-in-law of the informant, the dead body of aforesaid child was cremated at Biharsharif and the aforesaid information was subsequently given to mother-in-law of the informant. It is further contended by him that as a matter of fact when informant came, an altercation took place between petitioner and informant on account of payment and after that informant lodged this false case. It is further contended by him that in the paragraphs referred by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, the witnesses have supported the above stated facts and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif to differ with the findings of the police. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11954 of 2010 (4) dt.25-09-2012 Having heard the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I went through the case diary. I find much substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and it is apparent from perusal of the case diary that almost all the witnesses have stated that when the child was being taken to Biharsharif, he died on his way and after that information regarding the death of aforesaid child was given to mother-in-law of the informant. In my view, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in differing with the findings of the police and continuance of the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but only an abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, this quashing petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.09.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif is, hereby, quashed in respect of petitioner only. In the aforesaid manner, this quashing petition stands disposed off on admission stage itself. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 311

Statute Text:
Section 311 of the Indian Penal Code. OffencePunishment. Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.