IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5216 of 2008 ANWAR KARIM @ LALLU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 14.5.2010. Heard. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of order passed on 22.11.2002 by which cognizance of certain offences was taken and the petitioner alongwith others was summoned to stand their trial. The allegation is that after having been convicted on the complaint of the complainant in another case, the accused persons were annoyed with her and were on a look out to teach her a lesson and keeping that in mind the accused persons, when the lady went to retrieve back her cot from the house of one of the accused persons, namely, Mansoor Mian, she was badly assaulted and was chased to her house which was tenanted by her and was again assaulted. The allegation is that some properties including certain ornaments were also taken away by the accused persons. As regards the allegation of assault, it is generally made but as regards the allegation of theft of certain properties, they appear specified against some of the accused persons. - 2 - While making submissions, Sri Rana Ranvijay Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there were contradictions as regards the statement of the complainant made in the complaint petition as also that which was made on solemn affirmation. It was further contended that in the complaint petition the lady alleged being relieved of one of her ear-tops which she had put on in either of her ears, but in her statement on S.A., she was stating that it was her anklet which was taken away by the accused persons. It was contended that the accused persons have also filed a case on 14.3.2007 and three days, after so as to retaliating the accused persons, the complainant filed the present case. It was, as such, submitted that the order summoning the petitioner and others was an absolute abuse of the process of the court. The law on quashing an order of summoning or a prosecution is too well known to be stated. It has been held on several occasions by the Supreme Court that contradictions in the statements of witnesses or the defence of an accused, even if it could be so strong as to getting an order of acquittal for the accused, may not be enough for quashing the proceedings. The proceeding could be quashed if the - 3 - allegations made in the complaint petition indicated that no offence was constituted or that there were inherent improbability and patent absurdity and there was a bar in jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the complaint petition on account of some special laws or on account of some jurisdictional error. Thus, the contradictions which were highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, appear of no substance as regards the prayer made through the present petition. The order of summoning has to be passed on perusing the statement of the complainant, those of the witnesses or result of an enquiry or investigating as the case may be, which may appear from the perusal of the provisions of Sections 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. I find that the learned Magistrate who passed the impugned order has perused those materials and has satisfactorily, discussed them while passing the impugned order and in a position like that; I find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )