IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32561 of 1999 LALAN SINHA & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4/ 25.6.2010 Heard Shri Ram Suresh Rai, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the State. The petition has been filed seeking quashing of the prosecution initiated through order dated 3.8.1999 passed in Complaint Case no. 66 C of 1999 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul, Motihari. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the petitioners used to visit the complainant in connection with their business transaction and as such, developed some friendly relationship and, accordingly, borrowed rupees forty five thousand from the complainant for paying the same to another business man from whom petitioner no. 1 had purchased certain goods under the promise that he will pay back in fifteen days time. Accordingly, the money demanded was paid to accused Mandan Singh. Subsequently, the said complainant learnt that Madan Singh had to get his son, accused Bindu Kumar married and as such, some negotiations were initiated and after obtaining a nod the complainant came to the house of the accused persons on 8.3.1999 and some ceremony for fixing the marriage was performed during which course, the complainant gave over rupees five thousand with certain other articles. The complainant stated that he wanted the date of marriage to be fixed and placed proposal for 16.3.1999 on which the accused persons stated to him that they already owed rupees forty five 2 thousand to him and in addition to that, he should give a maruti car which was not agreed to by the complainant and as such accused persons refused to get accused Bindu Kumar married to the daughter of the complainant. It was alleged that in spite of several reminders, neither the money nor the articles were returned. It was contended that the basic statement of fact is that the accused persons used to visit the complainant in connection with some business transaction but, curiously enough, the complainant has not described any where in the complaint petition or in the array of the complaint as to what business did they carry on. As a matter of fact, Lalan Sinha was an employee of a government hospital and he was duly described by the complainant as such. It was submitted that it was a pack of lies to make allegations that the complainant used to visit in any connection. Similar statements were also pack of lies and appear motivated to harass the petitioners on any count, may be, at the instance of any person who could be nursing ill will towards the petitioners. As may appear from the title head of the petition and the address of the two petitioners describing them they are residents of different places either in the district of Jehanabad or Patna. Petitioner no. 1 Lalan Sinha is an employee in a government hospital and as such, it could be simply defy reasoning to accept that he will be carrying on any sort of business and transacting the same either with the complainant or any one else. Likewise, Bindu Kumar, admittedly, was not transacting any business, it was his father Madan Singh but what business Madan Singh was transacting or in what connection he was 3 borrowing rupees forty five thousand from the complainant appears not stated. It is too well known to be stated that summoning accused in a criminal trial is a matter very serious. Not only the whole routine of the person summoned gets disturbed but some of his liberties are also restricted. It is not unknown in our society that some one may set up the other to launch a criminal prosecution at any one’s behest or behalf so as to feeding fat one’s grudge. It is too well known to be stated that in spite of over sixty years of independence, a democratic set up of governance and working Constitution, we have not achieved the equality in our society. We often dislike our fellow citizen who is found wearing shoes and clean clothes if he belongs to the lower stratum of the society. No one belonging to the lower stratum of society could be tolerated who could muster courage even to sit in a chair before most of us. These are some social realities. Any body can set the process of criminal law in motion by initiating any proceeding through some unscrupulous person. This could be one of the reasons that this Court formulated Rule 32 of the Criminal Court Rules which requires the magistrate to hold an intelligent enquiry into the truthfulness of the complaint petition. It is further directed by the said rule that holding enquiry should not be a mere formality but it should be treated as a serious business. Unfortunately, such complaint petitions are being received unknowingly by the courts of magistrates and some orders of summoning a person are also being passed. This is high time that the magistracy of the state should inform themselves about the necessity of 4 following Rule 32 of the aforesaid Rules religiously in passing orders of summoning. Considering the absurdity and inherent improbability in the allegations which have been made in the complaint petition, the whole proceeding appears a complete abuse of the process of the court and the same is hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)