IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23013 of 2007 1. MANIK CHAND SONAR S/o late Bhikhari Ram Sonar 2. Ashok Sonar @ Chhatilal Sonar 3. Binod Sonar 4. Rajendra Prasad Sonar 5. Madan Jee Sonar All sl. no. 2 to 5 sons of Manik Chand Sonar 6. Krishna Sonar 7. Ratan Sonar Both sl. nos. 6 and 7 are sons of Binod Sonar All R/o village Bari Tola, Buxar, P.S. Buxar(T), District – Buxar. … Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ramjee Prasad Sigh, S/o Late Mahadeo Singh R/o village Purana Chouk, Buxar, P.S. Buxar(T), District – Buxar. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. B.J.Ojha, Adovcate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : None ORDER This application by all the seven persons who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 499(C) of 2006 is directed against the order dated 12.9.2006 passed therein by Sri R.K.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Buxar, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under sections 147, 327, 379/34 I.P.C. One Ramjee Prasad Singh, the complainant impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 28.6.2006 inter alia alleging that he has a house in Old Chauk, Buxar, and he had rented out one room on the western side thereof to - 2 - Manikchand Sonar, accused no. 1. It is also alleged that on the upper floor above the rented shop on the northern side thereof there is a construction made of wood and corrugated sheet which happened to collapse and all the accused persons started removing the wood and corrugated sheets at around 11 A.M. on 27.6.2006 when the complainant claims to have arrived in the meanwhile and remonstrated against the accused taking away the articles, whereupon the infuriated accused persons started abusing the complainant and threatened him to keep quite or else he would be killed. It is stated that in the meanwhile the witnesses arrived and they too intervened in the removal of items and abuse of the complainant but that notwithstanding the accused persons pushed the complainant and took away the corrugated sheets and wooden pieces. It is stated that the corrugated sheets removed was worth Rs. 1500/- and the wood removed was worth Rs. 10,000/- and the total cost of the items taken away was Rs. 11,500/-. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that for the same offence several cases were instituted at different times against the same set of accused persons. In this connection it has been submitted that one Girdharilal Gupta, at the instance of O.P. No. 2, filed Complaint Case No. 583(C) of 2003 for the occurrence dated 28.9.2003 and the same was dismissed on - 3 - 23.11.2005. Thereafter O.P. No. 2 showing the occurrence to have taken place on 3.10.2003 filed a complaint bearing Case No. 562(C) of 2003 on 7.10.2003 against the same accused persons for offences under sections 147, 323, 504 and 379 I.P.C. wherein cognizance was taken on 2.5.2006 and on the petitioners filing an application for quashing vide Cr. Misc. No. 36852 of 2006 and upon the same being heard on 11.11.2006 notice was issued and further proceedings in the court below were stayed. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 filed same type of cases against the accused persons in the year 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 also of which Complaint Case No. 361 (C) of 1999 was dismissed on 31.3.2007 on contest. On the aforesaid premise it was submitted that the filing of the series of complaints by the complainant and his associates against the same petitioners on the same set of facts would amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court and mockery of judicial system as also to reek vengeance to settle dispute with the tenant. Notices were issued to O.P. No. 2 by order dated 28.4.2007 and notice by registered post appears to have been validly served on him. Yet he has chosen not to appear and contest this application. The learned A.P.P. very fairly has taken stand in - 4 - supporting the learned counsel for the petitioners. The allegation against the complainant by this petitioners is that he is in the habit of filing or getting filed frivolous complaints more or less on similar set of facts, and the same remains unrebutted in the absence of the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case the continuance of such an arbitrary and fraudulent proceeding cannot be sustained in law and is required to be quashed. I accordingly quash the impugned order and allow the application. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 12th of November, 2008 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)