IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30945 of 2007 MADHUSUDAN MITTAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Adv., : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Adv., : Mr. Vinay Mistry, Adv.’ For the State : Mis. Pushpa Sinha, Ad., 4. 12.5.2008. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 26.2.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 3015 of 2005 passed by Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur thereby cognizance under Sections 380, 304, 506 I.P.C. has been taken against this petitioner and some other accused persons. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2. It appears from the record that opposite party no. 2 filed two cases against this petitioner and others; one bearing Muzaffarpur (East) P. S. Case No. 390 of 2002 which is in question and the other Complaint Case bearing No. 2543 of 2002 with almost same allegations. In police case, police after investigation submitted final form vide Annexure-3. However, a protest petition was filed by opposite party no. 2 of which learned C.J. M. registered as Complaint Case No. 3015 of 2005. Ultimately, it was enquired under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and vide impugned order dated 26.2.2007 learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against this petitioner and others. Other complaint case was also sent to the police under - 2 - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution and investigation whereby Muzaffarpur (Town) P. S. Case No. 512 of 2004 was registered under Sections 506/507 I.P.C. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance under Section 506 I.P.C. has been taken. It further appears that the petitioner who is an Advocate in Jharkhand High Court moved against the order of cognizance dated 19.3.2005 taken in Muzaffarpur (Town) Police Case No. 512 of 2004 which was ultimately heard on 25.7.2007 vide Cr. Misc. No. 16774/06 and the same was allowed and cognizance taken against this petitioner was quashed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation, in the present case, is almost same and identical. Police investigated the case and submitted final form. It is, further, submitted that on mere perusal of complaint petition it would appear that absolutely there is no criminal allegation against this petitioner. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and he has been made accused only because he had tendered advice to the other accused persons in the matter in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that this petitioner had advised for commission of offence. Other accused persons acted upon his advice and committed offence. Considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties. - 3 - It appears that both the parties are fighting cases as the brother-in-law of the petitioner was not going well with his wife, Anamika Banka. This case has been filed with ulterior and bad motive in order to harass the petitioner who is a practicing laywer. Taking cognizance against this petitioner on the basis of allegation levelled in the complaint petition is out and out misuse of the process of the Court. Court below has not properly exercised his judicial mind and applied law. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance dated 26.2.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 3015 of 2005 passed by Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur so far it relates to this petitioner is, hereby, quashed. kanchan (Ghansyam Prasad, J.)