CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS. No.5736 of 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ----- DR. SEEMA VERMA, MEDICAL OFFICER,INCHARGE, STATE DISPENSARY, PUNPUN AT PATNA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. TRIBHUWAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SHRI SAGUNDEO SINGH (LABORATORY TECHNICIAN) STATE DISPENSARY, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PUNPUN AT PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S Dhrub Narayan,Sr.Advocate Jitendra Prasad Singh,Adv. For the State : Mr. B.P. Singh, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. R.B. Ray “Raman”,Advocate. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.2.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.1257(C)of 1997. By the said order, cognizance of the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken. The complainant alleged in its complaint petition particularly in paragraph-9 of the complaint petition that the petitioner, who was posted as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Punpun, abused and threatened the complainant to withdraw the complain which was lodged by him regarding vigilance - 2 - enquiry. The complainant was posted as Laboratory Technician in the Primary Health Centre, Punpun and he was transferred from Punpun and the complainant had alleged that due to official work, he had visited the chamber of the petitioner. In the chamber, he was abused and coerced by the petitioner. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that present complaint petition was filed maliciously and moreover, the allegation which has been made in the complaint petition or during the examination of the complainant or on behalf of the witnesses, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code was comitted. He further submits that occurrence alleged to have taken place long back in the month of October, 1997. He also submits that for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, maximum punishment prescribed is simple imprisonment for two years or fine or both. The said offence is non-cognizable and triable by any Magistrate. Accordingly, he - 3 - submits that for such an offence, though it is not made out against this petitioner, after lapse of more than 12 years, it would not be advisable to direct the petitioner to face the trial. He also submits that the petitioner is a lady and she was holding a responsible post at the relevant time. He also submits that malicious prosecution is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. Without going into the merit of the case, I am of the view that, at this stage, after lapse of 12 years from the date of occurrence for the alleged offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, it would not be advisable to direct the petitioner to face rigour of the trial. The court is conscious of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is true that this power is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of the rare case, but at the same time, if it is noticed that trial for such - 4 - an offence would be a futile exercise, then in such case, it would be necessary to interfere. Accordingly, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to quash the order of cognizance. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT THE 18TH MARCH,2010 NAFR/Md.S.