IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53993 of 2007 1. SANJAY KUMAR, son of late Makardhwaj Prasad, resident of Sahebganj, P.S. & Dist. Sahabganj, at present posted as Circle Offier-cum-Block Dev. Officer, Nasriganj, District- Rohtas 2. NIRMAL KUMAR SHARMA, son of Ramdeo Singh, resident of Village Munjhar, P.S.-Haspura, Dist.- Aurangabad, at present posted as Gram Panchayat Supervisor, Nasriganj, District- Rohtas 3. KULDIP OJHA, son of late Udit Narain Ojha, resident of village Sadodihk, P.S. Karahgar, Dist.- Rohtas, at present Panchayat Sewak Gram Panchayat Parasiyan within Nasriganj Block, District- Rohtas -----------------Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Manoj Tiwari, son of Vasistha Tiwari, resident of village Shankarpur, P.S. Nasriganj, District- Rohtas at present Mukhiya of Parasiyan Gram Panchayat ---------------Opposite Parties. ----------- 05. 19.03.2010 Heard the parties. The present quashing application has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution including the order of cognizance dated 12.11.2007 passed by Sri. Ram Chandra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. C371 of 2007/Tr. No. 4199 of 2007 wherein cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner No. 1, Sanjay Kumar whereas against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, cognizance has been taken under Section 323, 325, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 is the Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Nasriganj. Petitioner No. 2 is Panchayat Supervisor of the same block whereas petitioner 2 No. 3 is the Panchayat Sewak of Gram Panchayat Parasiyan within Nasriganj block. The complainant Opposite Party No. 2 is the Mukhiya of Parasiyan Gram Panchayat. The allegation as against these three petitioners in the complaint is that on 18.05.2007 when the complainant went to the office of the Block Development Officer, where all the three accused persons were sitting and when the complainant raised the objection with regard to the preparation of the list of BPL and with regard to the appointment of Sikcha Mitra and also with regard to some irregularities in the Indira Awas Yojana and Old Pension Scheme upon which accused No. 1, the B.D.O. abused the complainant and petitioner No. 3 assaulted the complainant with iron rod as a result of which the complainant’s left hand got fractured and thereafter petitioner No. 2 took out the gold chain worth Rs. 15,000/- and gave it to petitioner No. 1 whereas petitioner No. 2 also snatched Titan watch of the complainant worth Rs. 15,00/-. It is further submitted that cash of Rs. 1240/- was also taken by the petitioner No. 3. After the assault the complainant went to the clinic of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh where the first aid was made and thereafter police came and took the statement of the informant. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh referred the complainant to B.H.U. where the plaster was put on complainant’s fracture on 19.05.2007 and after that, on 3 30.05.2007 the complainant was discharged. When the complainant was informed that no progress has been made in the police case, he filed the present complaint case on 08.06.2007. Consequently apart from the solemn affirmation of the complainant, three witnesses were also examined in support of the allegation in the complaint petition and the cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas on 12.11.2007 in Complaint Case No. C371/2007/Tr. No. 4199/2007 under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner No. 1 whereas under Sections 323, 325, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel has attacked the order of cognizance firstly on the ground that as per the complaint petition the occurrence took place on 18.05.2007 whereas the complaint has been filed on 08.06.2007 after more than two weeks of the occurrence as the complainant has not received such serious injury that he could not file the case for two weeks, hence on this score the whole case becomes doubtful. The other submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No. 3 on 06.06.2007 itself filed a case against the complainant of the present case being Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2007 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 353 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code in 4 which he alleged that the complainant was pressurizing for reducing the points of BPL candidates and for issuance of cheque of the Panchayat for which the informant Kuldip Ojha could not make himself ready. The complainant, the Mukhiya thereafter abused and assaulted him by Lathi and torn the B.P.L. forms and also took away Rs. 500/- from his pocket. Hence it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in retaliation to Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2007 which was registered on 06.06.2007, the present complaint case was filed on 08.06.2007 as a pressure tactic with false and fabricated allegations. Other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the complaint petition, after being assaulted the complainant went to the clinic of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and reported that he has received injuries in a road accident which is apparent from the prescription of the Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh contained in Annexure-3 dated 18.05.2007, which clearly suggests that the complainant got recorded before the doctor that he received injury in a road accident and the doctor after advising X-ray referred him to the Orthopedic Surgeon. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has not controverted this prescription of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh. Other submission of the learned counsel for the 5 petitioners is that all the three petitioners are public servant and it is not expected from them that they will behave in manner alleged. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that there is specific allegation in the complaint and after finding prima facie case cognizance has been taken and above all petitioner No. 3 is pursuing his case against the complainant vide Annexure-2 i.e. Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2007 upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has already taken instructions and both sides have agreed to file a compromise petition in Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2007 within four weeks before learned Court below. Hence at present complainant should not be apprehensive of the pendency of the aforesaid case. Considering the submissions of both the sides and after hearing learned counsel for the State and perusing the records, I find that the complaint has been filed at a much belated stage after more than 15 days of the date of occurrence and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, from perusal of Annexure-2 which is the case filed earlier from petitioner’s side which has not been controverted by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, it appears that in retaliation to Annexure-2, the present complaint case been filed as a retaliatory measure. 6 The prescription of Doctor contained in Annexure-3 reflects that opposite party received the fracture injury in road accident. Hence, in view of the aforesaid considerations, I do here by quash the order of cognizance dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj in Complaint Case No. C371/2007/Tr. No. 4199/2007 including the entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case. It is made clear that this order will be made effective only when the petitioner No. 3 and the complainant will file the joint compromise petition in the Court below in Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2007 as they have agreed that the matter has already been settled outside the Court. The application stands allowed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)