Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27306 of 2010 (3) dt.06-04-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27306 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Nirbhay Kumar , son of Late Binodanand Kumar, resident at Railway Quarter No.354B, New Colony Sahayak Police Station-Mirchaibari, District-Katihar. 2. Dayanand Thakur, son of Late Khelanand Thakur, resident at Railway Quarter No.354B, New Colony Sahayak Police Station-Mirchaibari, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Birendra Singh, son of Late Masudan Singh, resident of New Colony, Quarter No.428(A), Katihar, Police Station-Katihar, District- Katihar. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 06-04-2012 Petitioners have advanced two fold arguments. The first one, that either order dated 24.02.2010 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar had taken cognizance for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . be quashed on the ground of malafideness or the learned lower court be directed to take positive step towards early disposal of instant complaint petition which is being lingered at the hands of complainant by this way or that way. So far first prayer is concerned, for the present the same is found untenable. With regard to second prayer, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that complaint petition no.499 of 2006 was filed on behalf of complainant on 13.03.2006 and it took four Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27306 of 2010 (3) dt.06-04-2012 years to come to the stage of cognizance. Appearance of accused completed on 29.04.2010 and soon thereafter complainant gone in hiatus. Lastly, seeing no an alternative vide order dated 02.04.2011 case of prosecution under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. was closed. On the next day, all on a sudden complainant appeared filed petition for examination of witness in accordance with Section 311 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the learned lower court on 20.06.2011 at a cost of Rs.2500/-. Again the complainant withdrew himself. After sometime, on 30.06.2011 a petition has been filed that all the complaint named witnesses have been gained over so other witnesses should be allowed to be examined. Some was also allowed vide 13.10.2011 but till today the complainant is playing hide and sick policy. Anyhow the complainant wants to keep the instant proceeding alive for years together just to teach, terrorize and harass the petitioner. Virtually, the complainant has made the court tool for his own satisfaction in getting the petitioner harassed by way of continuance of instant vexatious prosecution. State has also endorsed the view that court should not be allowed to be used or permitted to be used as a tool / instrument for satisfying personal vengeance. The learned lower court is directed to perceive the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27306 of 2010 (3) dt.06-04-2012 conduct of the complainant and if feels that instant proceeding is being unnecessarily dragged on one pretext or other, the court will be at liberty to close the case of the complainant and will further proceed in accordance with law. So far stage of 244 is concerned, the learned lower court is directed to complete the formalities within three months from the date of receipt of order impugned. With the aforesaid observation, instant petition is disposed of. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 382

Statute Text:
Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft, after preparation having been made for causing death, or hurt, or restraint or fear of death, or of hurt or of restraint, in order to the committing of such theft, or to retiring after committing it, or to retaining property taken by it. Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.