Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10569 of 2010 ================================================== 1. Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Sharma, S/o- Late Ramkhayal Singh, resident of village-Akhtiyarpur, P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. 2. Bakhora Singh @ Vishwanath Singh, S/o- Sri Tipan Singh, resident of village-Dilawarpur,P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. 3. Siyaram Singh @ Sriram Singh, S/o- Late Raghunandan Singh, resident of village-Ghoratap,P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. 4. Sumeshwar Pandey, S/o- Late Ramgachi Pandey, resident of village -Ahilya Gautam Colony, Ashiyana Nagar, Patna-25. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o- Late Randheer Singh resident of village- Bihta,P.S.-Bihta,District-Patna (Complainant). .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10. 06-11-2012 Heard Sri R. S. Pradhan, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajeev Lochan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Md. Arif, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 06-01-2010 passed by Sri S. C. Sharma, learned Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No.10569 of 2010 (10) dt.06-11-2012 2 / 7 2 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’), in Complaint Case No. 936(C) of 2009. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned senior counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that in one case, two cognizance orders are not permissible. He submits that in the present case, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, after perusing the complaint petition and hearing the counsel for the complainant, had taken cognizance of the offence and thereafter, he had transferred the case by its order dated 06- 08-2009 for inquiry under Section 192(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the court of Sri S. C. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur. In support of his submission, he has relied on a judgment, which is reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 371 (BABUDDIN ALIAS BABUDDIN AHMAD & ORS. –VERSUS- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.). It is settled law that in one case, two cognizance Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No.10569 of 2010 (10) dt.06-11-2012 3 / 7 3 orders are not permissible and that has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Babuddin alia Babuddin Ahmad (supra). He further submits that petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit and in supplementary affidavit, prayer has been made for amending prayer portion to the extent of quashing of first order i.e. order dated 06-08-2009 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur. He further submits that on perusal of the complaint petition, it is evident that only with a view to disposses the petitioners from the land in question the present complaint petition was filed. He submits that a civil dispute has been given the colour of criminal offence and on this ground alone, the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2 submits that the order dated 06-01-2010 passed by the learned Magistrate, which is under-challenge, is not an order of cognizance, but said order was passed while proceeding with the case under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in this case, order of cognizance was passed by Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No.10569 of 2010 (10) dt.06-11-2012 4 / 7 4 the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur on 06-08-2009 and thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Sri S. C. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur for conducting inquiry under Section 192(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He specifically referred to the impugned order to highlight that the learned Magistrate, while directing for issuance of process, had taken note that in the case order of cognizance was passed earlier by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur and matter was referred to the learned Magistrate for conducting inquiry and for further proceeding. He further submits that this point has been noticed and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 2008 (SUPREME COURT) 1213 (S. K. SINHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER –VERSUS- M/S VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS). He has referred paragraph no. 15 of the judgment. For just decision in the matter, same is quoted here-in-below:- “15. From the above scheme of the Code, in our judgment, it is clear that „Initiation of proceedings,‟ dealt with in Chapter XIV, is different from „commencement of proceedings‟ covered by Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No.10569 of 2010 (10) dt.06-11-2012 5 / 7 5 Chapter XVI. For commencement of proceedings, there must be initiation of proceedings. In other words, initiation of proceedings must precede commencement of proceedings. Without initiation of proceedings under Chapter XIV, there cannot be commencement of proceedings before a Magistrate under Chapter XVI. The High Court, in our considered view, was not right in equating initiation of proceedings under Chapter XIV with commencement of proceedings, under Chapter XVI.” He further submits that in the main petition, prayer was made only to quash the order dated 06-01-2010, giving the colour that said order was cognizance order. However, during the pendency of this petition, a supplementary affidavit was filed for amending the prayer. He submits that for making such prayer, it was required on the part of the petitioners to file a separate interlocutory application and unless such petition is allowed, amendment in the present petition

Applicable IPC Section: 427

Statute Text:
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief, and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upwards. Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.