Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8338 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Pradeep Kumar Sinha S/O Late Phulan Prasad, R/O Shreeya Apartment , Ara Garden Road Bailey Road, Patna- 14 At Present Circle Officer, Circle Office, Raxaul, Distt- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Informant Mr. Sanjeet Keokuliar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 20-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.1.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 448 of 2010 corresponding Trial No. 1955 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance for offences under [STATUTE] . It has been submitted that the case has been instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed by one Shivnath Kumar Azad and in the complaint petition it has been alleged that on 10.9.2010 when the Tractor of the complainant was standing near the J.J. Seller shop, the petitioner came there and demanded concerned papers of the tractor whereupon Alok Rai (man of owner) told that the papers are in the possession of owner of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8338 of 2011 (2) dt.20-06-2012 2 / 4 2 tractor. Thereafter, the Circle Officer brought the tractor in Circle office. Later on, the son of the complainant went to the Circle office with entire documents and produced the same before the Circle Officer and requested to release the vehicle. It has been alleged that the son of informant went to the office of the Circle Officer who abused the son of the complainant and assaulted with fist and slap. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the Circle Officer, the tractor was released on the intervention of the S.D.O. on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- but instead of taking Rs. 5,000/- they have taken Rs. 10,000/- and gave the receipt for Rs. 5,000/- only. The main grievance of the complainant is that his son was abused, assaulted and illegally Rs. 5,000/- has been taken from him. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is completely a vexatious prosecution as it is apparent from the record that he was deputed in the Election Duty for taking the vehicle as the vehicle was not bearing any registration number which is an admitted fact too that even after nine months of purchase, the vehicle was brought to the Circle Office and on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- the vehicle was released. The counsel for the petitioner submits that no such Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8338 of 2011 (2) dt.20-06-2012 3 / 4 3 incident had taken place rather the petitioner has been framed up in the present case with an ulterior motive. The reason is that the petitioner has imposed the fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In support of his contention he has relied on judgment reported in 2008 (8) SCC 77 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the proceeding on the ground of personal grudge. In that case, raid was conducted by the raiding party, constituted by team persons but only one person was picked up. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found as fact to show how it was a case of vexatious prosecution. This judgment is not applicable in this case as facts of both cases are different. Admittedly in that case complainant and the accused persons were knowing each other from earlier time having been member of same institution but in this case such facts are absent and as such mala fide is not sustainable. Counsel for the petitioner has raised point of mala fide because he had imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- but that simple reason cannot give inference of mala fide but mala fide require more than that and as such the point of mala fide is not sustainable in the fact of the case. The Magistrate has only to see the test of prima facie case. The counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the statement and the material brought before the court below is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8338 of 2011 (2) dt.20-06-2012 4 / 4 4 sufficient for coming to the conclusion of prima facie case and the court below has not committed any illegality in summoning to the petitioner. This Court is agreeing with the submission of the opposite party because the court below has only to see the prima facie case and it is not required more than that. From the material on record that has been considered by the court below and has come to his own conclusion that prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. However liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appropriate application at the stage of framing of charge and the court below will examine the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.