Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26507 of 2008 ====================================================== Ravindra Nath , S/o Late Mahabir Sah, Resident of Village Jamalpur, P.S. – Gogri, District – Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Subodh Paswan, S/o Shital Paswan, Resident of Village – Allauli, P.S. – Alauli, District – Khagaria. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 13-03-2012 Heard Sri Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in S.T. / S.C. Case No. 29 of 2008 arising out of G.R. No. 277 of 2008. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and Section ¾ of the S.C. / S.T. Prevention of Atrocity Act. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has firstly argued that the learned Magistrate without application of mind has passed the order of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26507 of 2008 (6) dt.13-03-2012 2 / 4 2 cognizance in a mechanical manner. It was further submitted that though the complainant had initially filed complaint, in complaint petition the reason for occurrence was disclosed that the complainant was demanding for allotment of house under the scheme of ‘Indira Awas Yojna’, whereas, fact remains that under the said scheme house was already allotted to the complainant, and as such, there was no reason for demanding any illegal gratification for allotment of house to the complainant or assaulting and abusing him. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument that house was already constructed in favour of the complainant has referred to Annexures – ‘2’ & ‘3’ to the petition. It was further submitted that since it was alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/-, the matter was required to be investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has also relied on 2005(1) PLJR 579 (Hari Shankar Sah & Anr. Vs The State of Bihar & Anr. ) and 2007 (3) PLJR 267 (Anirudh Rai Vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) on the ground that such malicious prosecution should be quashed by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26507 of 2008 (6) dt.13-03-2012 3 / 4 3 impugned order. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that initially complaint was filed which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 85C of 2008 in which specific assertion was made that the complainant was assaulted and accused person i.e. the petitioner, had committed offences under the S.C. / S.T. Prevention of Atrocity Act. However, the said complaint was referred to Police for registration of F.I.R. and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter, F.I.R. vide Begusarai S.C./S.T. Case No. 29 of 2008 was registered. After registering F.I.R. Police investigated the case and finding the case as true Police submitted charge sheet and the learned Magistrate on the basis of materials available in the case diary and charge sheet has rightly passed the order of cognizance which requires no interference. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused materials available on record, particularly the F.I.R., which categorically discloses commission of offences for which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. So far as Annexures – ‘2’ & ‘3’ to the petition are concerned, at this stage, it would be difficult for this Court to come to a definite conclusion as to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26507 of 2008 (6) dt.13-03-2012 4 / 4 4 whether house under the scheme of ‘Indira Awas Yojna’ was allotted to the complainant or not. Moreover, in the F.I.R. there is specific assertion by the informant that publicly he was assaulted and abused, disclosing the commission of offences, for which, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of offences. So far judgments referred by learned senior counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner may not get any help from the aforesaid judgments. I do not find any merit. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

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.