Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26206 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shiv Deo Prasad Singh , Son of Late Bishwanath Singh, Resident of Village – Chauhatta, Police Station and District – Hazipur. 2. Triguna Prasad Singh, Son of Late Yugal Singh, Resident of Village Hanuman Nagar, Bhabha Colony, Police Station Kankarbagh, District – Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR) 2 19-01-2012 Heard Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, who was assisted by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Narain Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioners while invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.04.2010 passed in Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No. 132 of 2009 , G.R. No. 2161 of 2009. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order of cognizance submits that from the F.I.R. itself no cognizable offence is made out. It has further been argued that a complaint case was filed by one Jai Kumar Singh, who is follower of Sant Sri Asha Ram Bapu against one named accused and 30 to 40 unknown accused persons. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26206 of 2011 (2) dt.19-01-2012 2 / 3 2 It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate without application of mind has taken cognizance of the offence. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly relied on an Apex Court judgment reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 (State of Haryana and & Ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. ). He has referred to paragraph no. 108 of the said judgment and submits that the Supreme Court has already categorized at least seven situations in which a superior court can interfere even at initial stage of a criminal case. He has further relied on 2011(2) PLJR 381 (Mohinder Lal Vs State of Bihar) and also on 2012 (1) PLJR (SC) 133 (Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs Radhika & Anr.) on the point that if the court is satisfied that prosecution is completely malicious, then the court can interfere at initial stage. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the present case is squarely covered by the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case in the F.I.R. there is specific allegation against the accused persons that about 100 accused persons attacked on Police Station and tried even to snatch service revolver of the informant who was Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. F.I.R. further indicates that immediately thereafter the informant sent message (wireless) for deputing more forces, and thereafter, ‘Vajra Vahan’ also arrived there. In the F.I.R. the petitioners have been named as one of the associates. During investigation allegation was found true, and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against accused persons including both the petitioners. On perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offences had perused the case diary and charge sheet, and thereafter, the order was passed. Prima facie there is no error in the order of cognizance in view of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26206 of 2011 (2) dt.19-01-2012 3 / 3 3 facts and circumstances that there is specific accusation against the accused persons including the petitioners. So far Ch. Bhajan Lal Case (Supra) is concerned, it is true that the Supreme Court has indicated that in certain cases courts can interfere at initial stage of a criminal case but at the same time in paragraph no. 109 of its judgment the Apex Court has given a note of caution that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases. Even in view of this fact the petitioners’ case can not be put in such category for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. So far as Mohinder Lal’s Case (Supra) and Shiji Case (Supra) are concerned, the Court is satisfied that on the material on record, it can not be said to be a case of malicious prosecution due to the reason that in the F.I.R. it has been indicated that more than 100 persons had attacked the Police Station, and as such, no benefit can be given to the petitioners on the basis of aforesaid two judgments. Moreover, it has been repeatedly held that in a criminal case malafide has got secondary importance if a case discloses offences. If a case discloses commission of cognizable offence, then in that event, only on the ground of malicious prosecution, prosecution can not be set aside. I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. In view of rejection of the present petition, the concerned court is required to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without any unnecessary delay. PRAFUL (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.