IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4759 of 2008 1. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA S/O SHRI BHUPENDRA NR. SINHA, RESIDENT OF CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. 2. PRAFULLA KUMAR SETHI SON OF LATE PRIKATI SETHI, QR. NO. LB-2, JEEVAN ANAND, FRASER ROAD, PATNA. 3. AJAY KUMAR S/O OF LATE CHANDRA SEN PD. SINHA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 103, SHARAT APPT. KANNULAL ROAD, MITHAPUR, PATNA. 4. GOLAK BIHARI MALLIK SON OF LATE DULAL CHANDRA MALLIK, RESIDENT OF S.P. VERMA ROAD, PATNA. 5. BIKASH KR. CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE SURENDRA CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF HOPE SHIVALIK APPT., ANANDPURI, PATNA 6. SHIVA NATH SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SHIVA BHAWAN, GANDHI PATH, MITHAPUR, PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MURARI PRASAD SON OF SHYAMDEO PRASAD, ----------- For the petitioners : Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.S. Parasmani, and Sri N.D. Choubey, Advocates. For Opp. Party No. 2 : Sri A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Chandra Sen Pd. Singh, A.P.P. ------ 2/ 07.05.2010 Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who have been holding different administrative powers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, for quashing the order dated 22.06.2007 taking cognizance of offences under sections 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is not denied that the complainant was an employee on daily wages of the Life Insurance Corporation - 2 - of India ( in short the Corporation) and that he had been put In-charge of the Guest house of the Corporation and as such the keys of the guest house were in his custody. The complainant alleged that on 27.02.2007 at about 7 P.M. when the complainant was at his residence, all the petitioners came there and demanded the complainant to hand over the keys of the guest house and when the complainant sought reason there-for to be given by the accused persons, they all abused and assaulted him with fists and slaps. It is alleged that out of fear he started shouting and some persons assembled there when petitioner no.1 ( Birendra Kumar Sinha) took out a gold chain from the neck of the complainant and petitioner no.3 ( Ajay Kumar ) snatched his wrist watch. The shirt of the complainant was torn on account of assault and while he was attempting to flee away from there, petitioner No. 6 ( Shiva Nath) took out Rs. 5400/- from his shirt’s pocket and it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioners threatened that if the keys of the guest house were not handed over to them, the locks would be broken and the complainant could be thrown out from the possession of the guest house. 4. It was stated further by the complainant that he was threatened not to lodge any report with the police and if he informed the police then he would be - 3 - ousted from the services of the Corporation and further that they broke the lock of the rooms and took away belongings of the complainant valued at Rs. 50,000/-. 5. The complainant stated that the reasons for the occurrence was that he had chalked out a plan for agitating in support of the demand of the labourers’ organization which was to be held on 15.02.2007 and a “dharna” was to be held on 28.03.2007 in the Divisional Office of the Corporation and in order to upsetting the schedules of the above agitation, the accused persons had committed the offence. 6. As may appear from paragraph 7 of the complaint petition, the complainant stated that he went to the police station and handed over a written report to the officer present in the police station for institution of the case but on enquiry he came to know that no case was instituted and as such the present complaint was filed. 7. The complainant has appeared through Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate, and has filed his show-cause without the same being solicited by this court from him. I find that besides stating many things, he has annexed copies of a few documents as annexures to the said show-cause. Annexure-A to the show-cause filed by the complainant is the written report which was filed by him as per his statement in paragraph-7 of the complaint - 4 - petition. What is the difference in the written statement (Annexure-A) filed before the officer present in the police Station and the complaint petition is that he is alleged filing the report after the occurrence had taken place , that is to say that he filed a report at some time on 27.02.2007 but Annexure-A to the show-cause is dated 26.02.2007. 8. While hearing the present petition learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such occurrence took place as was alleged by the complainant which may appear from his written report, which is admitted by him to be filed before the Police Officer. He had neither put down any allegation of assault on him by the accused persons nor there was allegation of snatching wrist watch or any ornament or cash nor there was any allegation of threats being held out by the petitioners to the complainant. What the complainant alleged in Annexure-A was that the petitioners had come to seek the delivery of the keys of the guest house to them and said to the complainant that in case the same were not handed over to them, the lock could be broken and the room in his possession could be vacated through some persons. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has attempted to reconcile some of the facts which appear contrary to the statements of the complainant made in Annexure-A. That document is the - 5 - written report of the complainant, filed before the police seeking institution of the case, which is admitted by him in his own show-cause, 2nd paragraph of which petition bears the date 26.02.2007. The second paragraph of that document also indicates that as the petitioners had come to the guest house seeking delivery of the keys of the guest house on 26.02.2007. But the date and time of occurrence which appears in the complaint petition upon which the petitioners have been summoned is 27.02.2007 at 7.00 P.M. The date in the petition of complaint appears in contradiction to the contents of Annexure-A to the show cause of the complainant, otherwise the time appears the same which has been stated both in the complaint petition and the document Annexure-A. It was contended by Shri Sinha that in fact there had been two occurrences, one on 26.02.2007 and that was followed by the other on 27.02.2007 and, as such, there was no mention of any assault being administered to the complainant by the petitioners or taking away his properties as was alleged in the complaint petition. 10. What this Court finds is that if there had been any occurrence on 26.02.2007 the mention must have been made of that fact in the complaint petition itself and the complainant must not have missed to mention that the same occurrence or some more severe occurrences - 6 - were repeated by the petitioners on 27.02.2007. What, however, I find from the contents of paragraph-7 of the complaint petition is that he had filed a report in respect of the occurrence. He might be saying at this stage of litigation that the occurrence was dated 27.02.2007 but after having filed the report ( Annexure-A) on 26.02.2007, the complainant appears making a statement which is contrary to his own admission. 11. The law is well settled that a prosecution could be quashed on inherent improbabilities and patent absurdities and as also if the court finds that the prosecution was stemming from a sense of vengeance so as to spit at the accused persons with malicious intent and with intent to implicate falsely. These observations were made by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, A.I.R. 1992 SC 604. 12. The patent absurdity which appears to me is that the officers of the L.I.C. of the rank of the petitioners could never themselves go to the residence of the care-taker in a group to seek delivery of keys . It could be accompliced by any of them by sending a staff of the Corporation to the complainant. Secondly, in paragraph 7 of the complaint petition which is reflected in the form of Annexure-A, it is admittedly filed by the complainant at the police station, does not bear any allegation of the - 7 - complainant being assaulted by any of the petitioners or any of his properties being removed after breaking the lock of the room. Annexure-A does not whisper of the allegation that the petitioners had indeed broken the locks. Now the complainant has moulded the facts to make out some offence as to alleging it against the petitioners. He has stated about the removal of his gold chain, his wrist watch and Rs. 5400/- from the pocket of his torn- shirt. These are allegations which, ought to have been made at the very first opportunity the complainant was filing his report Annexure-A before the police. The absurdity is that the complaint was much in the guest house, which he appears occupying probably unauthorisedly, but how could and why should be carry such a heavy sum of money in his pocket. These are the patent absurdities and inherent improbabilities which appears from the circumstance of the case. The complainant, a daily wage-earner was in occupation of the guest house of the Corporation, he was not ready to part with the keys of the guest house, which were being asked for by the petitioners. This appears to me as the reason that he was spitting at the accused maliciously by filing the complaint. The allegations appear stemming from his malice of being divested with the possession and of enjoying the comfort of the guest house. To me the - 8 - prosecution appears out and out malicious, brought about only with a view to harass the petitioners who are in the high ranks of the L.I.C. of India. It appears to me necessary otherwise to secure the ends of just also that such a frivolous complaint petition should not be allowed to go to the trial . 13. As a result, the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2007 is quashed along with the whole of the prosecution. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J ) BTiwary/