IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54810 of 2007 1. Vijay Singh @ Gopal Singh, Son of Late Rajendra Singh. 2. Gopi Singh, Son of Late Rajendra Singh. 3. Ram Jeevan Singh @ Rahul, Son of Vijay Singh. All residents of Village- Dhiradar, P.S. Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai....Petitioners. Versus 1. Smt. Renu Devi, Wife of Sudhir Singh, resident of Village- Dhiradar, P.S. Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai. 2. The State of Bihar...............................................Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 28.04.2010. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the matter has not proceeded after cognizance level. Let it be kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite parties as well as the learned counsel for the State. In the present application, the order of cognizance dated 28.08.2007 has been challenged by the petitioners whereby the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, has taken cognizance under Sections 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 259C of 2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the complaint 2 petition contained in Annexure-1, it appears that the occurrence took place on 18.06.2007 at 7.30 P.M. whereas the complaint has been filed in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, being complaint case no. 259C of 2007 on the same day i.e., 18.06.2007 which makes the case doubtful. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the timing of occurrence has been confirmed by the enquiry witness no.1 which is Annexure-2 to the present application. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both sides are agnates and a whole lot of litigations are going on between the parties including 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding between the brother-in-law of the complainant, Sanjeev Kumar Singh and petitioner no. 1 and other family members which is apparent from Annexure-4. The proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. being Lakhisarai Case No. 244M of 2004 is pending between the husband of the complainant Sudhir Kumar Singh and petitioner 3 no.1 and apart from that other cases are also going on between the parties. Hence as a retaliatory measure due to previous enmity the present frivolous case has been lodged. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has submitted that the learned trial court has found the prima-facie case and no interference is required at this stage. From perusal of the record, it appears that the case has been lodged with ornamental allegations due to previous enmity. The time of occurrence has been given as 18.06.2007 at 7.30 P.M. whereas on 18.06.2007 itself the complaint has been filed in the court which makes the case doubtful. The time of occurrence has been given by enquiry witness no. 1 as 7.30 P.M. on 18.06.2007. Furthermore, instead of filing of a police case, the complaint was filed and the explanation has been given in paragraph no.3 to the complaint petition to the effect that in the morning the complainant went to Barhaiya police station and when the police refused to register the case then the complainant lodged this complaint on 18.06.2007. Learned counsel for the 4 petitioners has submitted that the complainant has no occasion to go to the police station in the morning when occurrence took place in the evening. Apart from that the specific case of the complainant is that she was bringing the Jewellery for the purposes of the marriage of her son Raushan Kumar whereas the Invitation Card has been annexed as Annexure-3, which depicts that Raushan Kumar was actually married on 12.03.2007 much prior to the date of occurrence. In totality of the things it depict that the case has been lodged due to the previous enmity and series of litigations going on between the parties. Hence in view of the seven windows in Bhajan Lal’s case reported in 1992 S.C.C. supplementary(1) 335 the present case appears to be malicious. The seven broad grounds for quashing the criminal prosecution jenvisaged in Bhajan Lal (supra) case are as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in 5 their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of 6 a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a 7 view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” In that view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 28.08.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in complaint case no. 259C of 2007 is do hereby quashed and the application is allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)