Criminal Miscellaneous No.10068 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ishwar Dhari Choudhari,Son of Late Basudeo Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Manpur Malahtoli, P.S. Mufassil, District-Gaya -------------- Petitioner Versus 1. Akhauri Anil Kumar, Son of not known, Sub- Inspector of Excise, Mufassil Anchal, P.S. Mufassil, District-Gaya 2. Inderdeo Prasad , Son of Harakdeo Prasad, Excise Constable , Mufassil Anchal, P.S. Mufassil, District- Gaya 3. Radhika Raman Singh, Son of not known, Excise Constable, Mufassil Anchal, P.S. Mufassil, District- Gaya 4. The State of Bihar ------------ Opp.Parties ------------ For the petitioner: Mr. Bahadur Roy, Advocate For the State : Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The petitioner , who is the complainant in Complaint Case No.555 of 1995, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.2.1999 passed by Sri G.S.R. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No.555 of 1999/ 258 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for adding the charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The short facts of the case is that the petitioner filed a complaint petition in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya alleging therein that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 2 19.10.1995 he had gone to do some pairvi of his client in the court of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as in the court of Sri S.K.Chaudhary, Executive Magistrate, Gaya. It was disclosed that the petitioner/complainant was an Advocate’s Clerk in Gaya Civil Court. While he was returning after doing pairvi , near the gate of the office of Sub Divisional Officer the accused persons, who were officials of the Excise Department, surrounded the petitioner and abused and assaulted him. In the said occurrence, as alleged by the complainant/petitioner, on the direction of Opp.Party no.1 other accused persons snatched watch of the petitioner worth Rs.500/- and also took Rs.450/- from the upper pocket. On these grounds, a complaint petition was filed and Opp.Parties were put on trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to paragraph 4 of the petition, submits that cognizance in the case was taken under Sections 147,323,504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of framing of charge in the case, charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was not framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the trial sufficient materials was brought on record disclosing commission of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, a petition was filed for adding Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order. From the order, it appears that only with a view of linger the trial and to harass the public servant 3 the petition for adding Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the same court. The order indicates that earlier on 18.11.1995 while summoning the accused persons, the learned Magistrate had recorded that the allegation of snatching of money and watch appears to be absurd and the court was satisfied that no prima facie case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. Thereafter, on 06.5.1997 a similar petition was filed by the complainant and the same was rejected by the order dated 14.5.1997. The petitioner being an Advocate’s Clerk had created the situation to linger the conclusion of the trial in such complaint petition for about 15 years. The Opp.Parties were public servant and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has simply tried to abuse of the process of the court and similarly he had harassed the Opp.Parties for such a long time. 5. Once the prayer was already rejected by the same court , by filing separate petition with the same prayer amounts to making the prayer for review of earlier order in the present case. On earlier occasion twice the prayer for adding Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected and, as such, the third petition , which was filed with the same object, was nothing but to abuse of the process of the court and I am of the view that the petitioner, while filing the present petition. is liable to be imposed heavy cost besides rejection of the present case. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned 4 above, I reject this petition with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs.5000/-( Five thousand) in the High Court Legal Services Committee ,High Court Building, Patna Accordingly, the petition stands rejected with costs. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 20th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )