Criminal Miscellaneous No.7200 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- Laldeo Sada, Son of Ram Charan Manjhi, resident of Village- Krishnawara, P.S. Patepur, District- Vaishali ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Manju Devi, Wife of Surat Manjhi, resident of Village- Krishnawara, P.S. Patepur, District- Vaishali -- Opp.Parties. ------------- For the petitioner : Sri Girish Chandra Verma, Advocate For the State : Sri Md.Ansarul Haque , A.P.P. -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.11.1999 passed in Case No. C1 956 of 1998/ Tr.No.1444 of 1999 ( Patepur P.S. Case No.64 of 1998). By the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.956 of 1998 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging therein that at about 12 O’ Clock while she was in her hut and her family members had gone to the field, the petitioner arrived there and started to commit an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. However, before final completion of the said offence, on alarm raised by the complainant, her family 2 members arrived there. The complaint petition was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the case was falsely instituted by the complainant. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed and complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint petition, three witnesses were examined as enquiry witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 30.11.1999 passed the impugned order of cognizance. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition and while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2 , this Court had directed that till further order is passed at the admission stage, further proceeding in the court below , so far as the petitioner is concerned, in Patepur P.S. Case No.64 of 1998, Trial No.1444 of 1999, shall remain stayed and thereafter the case was admitted on 5.12.2000 and this Court directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order dated 24.7.2000 passed by this Court shall continue. The order of stay is continuing. 4. Sri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that it was completely a false case and due to family dispute, the present complaint was lodged. However, truth has surfaced during the investigation and, as such, final form was submitted in the present case. Subsequently, since the complainant was pursuing the matter to implicate the petitioner, a protest petition was filed and thereafter, the order of cognizance in the present case was passed. According to the learned 3 counsel for the petitioner, there is no material on record to proceed with the case and the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has passed the order of cognizance of offence, which is required to be quashed. 5. Sri Ansarul Haque, learned Addl.Public Prosecution appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by learned counsel for the State that in the complaint petition itself there was specific assertion, which discloses the commission of alleged offence. It was further submitted that even on perusal of the statement of the complainant, which was recorded on S.A., it appears that there is no flaw in the case. In this case, three witnesses were examined as enquiry witnesses and all the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant. It was further submitted that it is not appropriate to interfere with the order of cognizance in such a case that too while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which is to be exercised in exceptional cases. Accordingly, he has prayed to reject the present petition. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In this case, the complainant is consistent with the allegation and there is no reason to disbelieve her assertion. Moreover, the learned Magistrate on the basis of materials brought on record during the enquiry was satisfied with the allegation and the order impugned was passed. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance and the petition stands allowed. 8. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim 4 order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 7th July,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )