IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.39334 OF 2009 1. MD. ZUBAIR, SON OF LATE MD. YASEEN 2. NIKHAT PRAVEEN, WIFE OF MD. ZUBAIR 3. JUGNU PRAVEEN, DAUGHTER OF MD. ZUBAIR 4. SAYESHTA PRAVEEN, DAUGHTER OF MD. ZUBAIR 5. MD. SADIQUE, SON OF MD. ZUBAIR ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAIDERGANJ KARAH, POLICE STATION SILAO, NALANDA ……………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. RAGIB ANWAR, SON OF MD. MUSTAFA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SAHOKHAR, POLICE STATION SOHSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA ………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ****** 3 12/04/2010 Earlier, notices were issued to the Opposite Party No. 2, however, nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 although vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 104 C of 2009 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nalanda at Biharsharif has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 448 & 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioner no. 2, the wife of the petitioner no. 1, came to the house of the informant Md. Raghib Anwar and all the petitioners entered the house and took away various 2 articles, such as television etc. The background of the case is that the complainant Md. Ragib Anwar along with his brother- in-law, mother-in-law and others have been convicted by the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial Nos. 510 of 2007 and 707 of 2007. Md. Ragib Anwar filed two complaint cases. The first case was filed for the offences under Sections 364, 406, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code making allegations against these very petitioners. The case was found to be untrue and final report was submitted in the case. The second case being Complaint Case no. 104 C of 2009 has been filed making similar allegations against all the family members. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment (Annexure-3) from which it would be clear that the complainant has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code along with his brother-in-law. In order to take revenge, these two complaint cases were filed. The date of occurrence in the case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is 09.04.2007 whereas the present case has been filed on 01.02.2009. The present case as well as the earlier case (Annexure 2) was filed on 31.01.2008 and 01.02.2009 3 i.e. just before the delivery of judgment of the case under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been argued that the complaint cases have been filed deliberately and there is no question as the occurrence described in the complaint petition is unbelievable in view of the fact that both the parties had no connection with each other since the institution of the case under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. Their relationship has become strained and therefore, there is no question that any one of the family would have been thinking of visiting of the house of the brother-in-law Md. Ragib Anwar for the purpose alleged. This Court finds the case as one of malicious prosecution filed in order to take revenge. In the circumstances, I quash the order impugned. This application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)