Criminal Miscellaneous No.22790 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---- 1. RAMAUTAR GOSWAMI SON OF BISHUN GOSHWAMI 2. CHANDRASHEKHAR GOSWAMI @ CHANDRA GOSWAMI SON OF RAMAUTAR GOSWAMI, BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BELWAGANJ, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM PRATAP PANJIAR SON OF LATE JITAN PANJIAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BELWAGANJ, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DIST. DARBHANGA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S Ajay Kumar Thakur,Adv. Imtyaz Ahmad,Adv. Ravi Ranjan I,Adv. Amit Kumar,Adv. For Opposite Parties : M/S.Vishwanath Prasad Singh,Sr.Adv. Prakash Ranjan Thakur,Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 23.7.1998 and the order whereby processes against them were ordered to be issued for facing trial in Complaint Case No.357 of 1996 for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned - 2 - counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the complainant on same accusation had earlier filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.353 of 1990, which was referred to the police for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, on 9.2.1991, a police case vide Laheriasarai P.S. Case No.82 of 1991 was registered for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After registering the case, police investigated the same. However, during the investigation, the allegation made in the complaint petition was found untrue. Thereafter, on 2.3.1991, police submitted final form exonorating accused persons. Mr. Thakur further submitted that on 21.3.1991, the police also filed a prosecution report for prosecuting the complainant, who is opposite party no.2 here for commission of offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the opposite party no.2 had filed a protest petition. After submission of the final form, the learned Magistrate accepted the same and protest petition was kept on the complaint side - 3 - and thereafter, the proceeding was initiated in Complaint Case No.801 of 1991/619 of 1991. The said complaint was rejected at the enquiry stage itself. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry by its order dated 5.12.1992 recorded that no case was made out to further proceed in the matter. Aggrieved with the order dated 5.12.1992, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant filed a revision petition vide Cr. Revision No.750 of 1992. However, the Cr. Revision also stood rejected by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge by its order dated 15.4.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after rejection of the revision petition, the complainant again on the same set of allegation filed the present complaint petition, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.357 of 1996. However, the learned Magistrate after enquiry by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, order of cognizance is palpably incorrect and also illegal. He submits that for the same set of allegation filing of the - 4 - complaint petition by the complainant himself is malicious prosecution, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Sri Vishwanath Prasad Singh, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that in view of settled law, the complaint petition, which was filed earlier though was rejected, the same complaint still survives and, accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality or irregularity to proceed with the present complaint petition. 4. I have also examined materials available on the record as well as the impugned order. In view of the fact that long back in the year 1991, his complaint, which was investigated by the police come to an end on submission of final form with a remark that allegation was untrue. Moreover, the police, who is investigating agency, after collecting materials, came to the conclusion that complainant was liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. I am of the view that allowing the prosecution of the petitioners on - 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 23.3.2010 N.A.F.R./Md.S. the same facts and allegations, which was earlier found untrue by the investigating agency as well as by the learned Magistrate would amount to abuse of process of law, it would not be advisable to allow the case to proceed further. If the proceeding on the present complaint is allowed to further proceed, it will certainly amount to abuse of process of the court and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court it is a duty on the part of this Court to intervene in the matter. 5. Accordingly, I set aside the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.357 of 1996. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)