Criminal Miscellaneous No.3226 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- 1. Gunanand Sah ,Son of Late Bokai Sah 2. Md. Shafi Ahmad, Son of Late Jamil Ahmad Both are residents of Bairgachi at present Araria Basti, P.S. Araria, District-Araria ----------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rai Jatan Bhagat, Son of Late Kamla Prasad Bhagat, resident of Village-Araria, Mouze- Bairgachi, P.S. Araria, District- Araria -------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Sri Amish Kumar, Advocate For the State: Sri A.M.P.Mehta, 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 entire criminal proceeding in Araria P.S. Case No.350 of 1997 as well as order dated 9.7.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in Araria P.S. Case No.350 of 1997, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 419,420,120(B), 421,465,467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 1279 of 1997 was filed on 9.9.1997 by Opp.Party no.2 alleging therein commission of several offences by the petitioners including fabrication of deed in respect of land, appertaining to Khata No.249 Khesra No.1982, situated in Village-Araria. After filing of the complaint petition, the complaint was referred to police for its registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2 and thereafter an F.I.R. vide Araria P.S. Case No.350 of 1997 was registered on 14.10.1997 for offences under Sections 419,420, 120B , 423, 465,467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After registering F.I.R. police conducted investigation. However, the police after collecting materials during the investigation came to the conclusion that dispute in between the parties was purely civil in nature, and as such, instead of forwarding the petitioners to face trial, they were exonerated and police submitted final report. After submission of the final report, the complainant filed a protest petition and thereafter the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offences, as mentioned above. 3. Sri Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, submits that the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner, only on the basis of protest petition, has taken cognizance of the offence that too in a case, where the police had already submitted final form with an opinion that the dispute was purely civil in nature. It was further submitted that the complainant/informant had maliciously filed a complaint petition and thereafter to ascertain the veracity in the complaint petition it was referred to the police and on the truthful material collected during the investigation, the police submitted final form. It was argued that it was not an isolated case, but prior to the filing of the present complaint petition, which was subsequently registered as an F.I.R., the complainant and his brother had taken several attempts to falsely implicate the petitioners in criminal case with sole object to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. It was argued that the 3 petitioners had got the land in question purchased from one Jawahar Bhagat on 7.10.1985 and since then they were in peaceful possession over the land and they were regularly paying rent in respect of the said land. To the reasons best known to the complainant/ informant in the year 1993 itself, a case was instituted by him against petitioner no.1 vide Araria P.S. Case No.85 of 1993. In that case also, allegation was mainly related to the land in question. The said F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, in which after order of cognizance, the petitioner no.1 had approached this Court by filing a quashing application vide Cr.W.J.C.No.258 of 1997 and this Court after hearing the parties and considering the facts that it was a civil dispute had quashed the entire prosecution in Araria P.S. Case No.85 of 1993. A photo copy of the order dated 23.9.1997 passed in Cr.W.J.C.No.258 of 1997 has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the present petition. 4. It was not the end of the matter, but in the same year, i.e. in the year 1993, the brother of the complainant, namely, Sheo Pujan Bhagat had filed a complaint case against petitioner no.1, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 125 of 1993. In the said case, after enquiry the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and petitioner no.1 was put on trial . During the trial, several witnesses were examined and finally the learned 1st Class Judicial Magistrate,Araria by its Judgment and order dated 7th April 1997 acquitted petitioner no.1 from all the charges. While acquitting, the learned Magistrate on the basis of evidence had come to the conclusion that petitioner no.1 was actually holder of the land in question. 5. Sri Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 4 the petitioner has referred to paragraph 12 of the Judgment dated 7th April, 1997, which has been annexed as Annexure-6/1 to the present petition. In all the cases, allegation was commission of offences over the land in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that when the petitioner no.1 got a clean acquittal in Complaint Case No.125 of 1993/ Tr.No.155 of 1996 by the Judgment dated 7.4.1997, on the petition of complainant, a proceeding under Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the petitioner no.1 and finally the said proceeding ended in favour of the petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-7 to the petition, which is the ordersheet of case No.714M/ 97. 7. In this case despite the fact that Opp.Party no.2 had entered his appearance through his advocate, at the time of hearing none had appeared on his behalf. However, in this case, Sri A.M.P.Mehta, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State and has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. Aforesaid fact discloses that the fact that the complainant, time without number, had tried to implicate the petitioner in the cases, which had finally resulted in favour of the petitioners. Even the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had ended in favour of the petitioners. Moreover , the present complaint was thoroughly investigated by a statutory investigating agency ,i.e. the police and the police during the investigation was of the opinion that the dispute 5 was purely civil in nature and did not forward either of the petitioners to face the trial . In such a situation, it would not be appropriate to allow the prosecution of the petitioner on such complaint, which had finally ended in favour of the petitioners by the Investigating Agency. The Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not required to proceed with a protest petition filed by the complaint in the present case. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that allowing the prosecution of the petitioner in the present proceeding will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court and with a view to prevent abuse of the process of the court, it is required to quash the entire prosecution as well as the order of cognizance dated 9.7.1999 passed in Araria P.S. Case No.350 of 1997. 9. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 9.7.1999 passed in Araria P.S. Case No.350 of 1997 as well as the entire prosecution so far as petitioners are concerned are hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 7th July,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )