IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32564 of 2008 Brij Mohan Singh, son of Late Dashrath Singh, resident of Village-Nachap, P.S. Manjhi, District-Saran (Chapra). …………………………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ashnarayan Manjhi, son of Sukhdeo Manjhi, resident of village-Sughar Chapra, P.S. Manjhi, District-Saran. ……………………………………....Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P. ------------------------------------ O R D E R 5. 14.9.2011. Through this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the cognizance order dated 18.6.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra (Saran), in Manjhi P.S. Case No.23 of 2006, G.R. No.457 of 2006, against the petitioner and the other accused, Sri Ramayan Das Tiwary, for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 347 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on the basis of the written report of the informant-opposite party no.2, 2 Ashnarayan Manjhi, dated 20.1.2006, addressed to Sri S.P. Singh, the then Superintendent of Police, Chapra, Bihar, Manjhi P.S. Case No.23 of 2006 was instituted on 18.2.2006 under Sections 406, 420, 347 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the other accused, Ramayan Das Tiwary. The allegation of the informant-opposite party no.2 is that the petitioner, Brij Mohan Singh, and the other accused, Ramayan Das Tiwary, took the cash Rs.2500/- and paper of land from him to get available the loan from Bank for installation of a tube-well in the year 1983 but till date they have returned only Rs.500/- and balance of the amount and paper of the land have not been returned. It is also alleged that they obtained the signature on the paper from the informant-opposite party no.2, his mother and aunt. On demand of paper and money, they used to threaten the informant- opposite party no.2 to kill. On investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra (Siwan), took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner and other accused, Ramayan Das Tiwary. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the informant-opposite party no.2 has not produced any chit of paper about receiving the money and paper by the petitioner and the other accused. The informant-opposite party no.2 taking the advantage of the acquaintance with the S.P., Chapra, Saran, has handed over the written report to him at Room No.401, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi, on 26.1.2006, only to satisfy his grudge due to village dirty politics, for lodging the case about the alleged occurrence of 23 years old. It has also been submitted that after inordinate delay of 23 years of the alleged occurrence, the present case has been lodged, for which no explanation has been furnished in the F.I.R. and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without considering the same, took the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections in a mechanical way, which amounts to the abuse of the process of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order with respect to the co-accused, Ramayan Das Tiwary alias Rama Narayan Das Tiwary, has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.42251 of 2006 (Annexure-‘3’ to this application) 4 taking into consideration all the facts and the circumstances of the case. 4. From the written report, it is itself clear that for the alleged occurrence of the year 1983, the written report addressed to Sri S.P. Singh, Superintendent of Police, Chapra, Bihar, was handed over to him at Room No.401, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi by the informant-opposite party no.2 on 26.1.2006. Nothing has been stated about submitting the written report after 23 years of the alleged occurrence in the written report. The impugned order itself goes to show that the same has been passed in a mechanical way by the Chief Judicial Magistrate without applying the judicial mind. Annexure-‘3’ to this application goes to show that the impugned order dated 18.6.2006 has already been quashed with respect to the co-accused, Ramayan Das Tiwary @ Rama Narayan Das Tiwary, by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.42251 of 2006. 5. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, taking cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner through the impugned order appears to be abuse of the process of the court. 5 6. Accordingly, the impugned order 18.6.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra (Saran) in Manjhi P.S. Case No.23 of 2006, G.R. No.457 of 2006, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)