IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.6471 of 2009 1. SHASHI SHEKHAR THAKUR, Son of Late Krishna Mohan Thakur, Ex-Branch Manager, LIC of India, Gopalganj, presently posted at Shillong Branch of LIC of India, P.O., P.S. & District Shillong (Guwahati). 2. Someshwar Ram, Son of Late Sheodhari Ram, Ex-Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Gopalganj Branch, presently posted at Jhanjharpur Branch of LIC of India, P.O., P.S. & District – Jhanjharpur (Madhubani). 3. Amit Singh @ Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Thakur Singh working as Daily Wager in the Gopalganj Branch of LIC of India, P.O., P.S. & District – Gopalganj. ...... Accused – Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Sanjay Kumar Abhay, Son of Sri Vindhyachal Dubey, resident of village - Bangra, P.S. – Kuchaikot, District – Gopalganj. ....... Complainant – Opp. Party No. 2. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate. For the O.P. :- None. For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhya, A.P.P. 03/ 24.01.2011 This is a petition for quashing the order dated 01.08.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Trial No. 1380 of 2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. 500 of 2006 by which the process has been issued against the accused persons after taking cognizance for offence under Section 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as alleged in the 2 complaint petition by the complainant claiming to be the reporter of Gopalganj Times now English T.V. Channel who published news in English is that one Harihar Prasad who is the witness in the case came and alleged that Rs.500/- is being demanded as bribe for granting him a cheque of Rs.12,500/- which has matured under the money back policy. It is alleged that the complainant along with his secret camera went to the Branch Manager and reported that Rs.500/- is being demanded for the said cheque. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 Shashi Shekhar Thakur, Ex-Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gopalganj said that a demand is only for Rs.500/- otherwise really Rs.1000/- is taken for encashment and hence advised to pay. It is further alleged that thereafter the Branch Manager called accused no. 2 Someshwar Ram in his Chamber and asked Harihar Prasad to pay him Rs.500/- and it is alleged that Harihar Prasad paid Rs.500/- to accused no. 2 which was also recorded in the camera. It is alleged that accused no. 3 and alleged to be the peon in the said office and made a Halla that the complainant is a Journalist and he is giving the bribe to make out a news and on which the accused no. 1 caught hold of the collar 3 and then a physical altercation took place and it is alleged that he threw away the camera kept in the pocket of the complainant on the ground by which the camera got damaged and during forgery and physical altercation it is alleged that Rs.2,500/- was taken away by the peon from the pocket of the informant and the complainant and the witness was thrown out and the damaged camera was not provided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the complaint is false, fictitious and mala fide and there was no occasion for the Journalist to enter into the premises and the allegation about the assault and taking out the money by the peon to the tune of Rs.2,500/- is malicious and not believable and is so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent man can ever believe it and even description of the camera has not been mentioned in the complaint petition. However, the petitioner no. 1 is the Branch Manager, petitioner no. 2 is the Administrative Officer and petitioner no. 3 is the Peon. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the allegation regarding the assault is omnibus and not specific who assaulted him and 4 the specification of the camera has not been mentioned. 5. However, taking into consideration the fact there is allegation that a demand of Rs.500/- made for encashing the money back policy to the tune of Rs.12,500/- and in this connection the petitioner complainant being the Journalist went along with the witness alleged to have taken photograph and it is alleged that the camera was damaged and even was not returned but the specification of the camera has not been made nor any case instituted before the police for the said camera and to a court question has stated that he got camera from the Company and he has not lodged any case in police station regarding the theft of camera. 6. However, taking into consideration the fact and circumstance, the petitioner entered into the premises for taking photograph and thereafter the allegation of assault is vague and the only allegation that the Branch Manager caught hold of collar of complainant and threw the camera, there is further allegation of snatching of Rs.2500/- by peon. 7. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though the point is raised that 5 the prosecution is mala fide to spit vengeance but this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation at this stage and fact alleged cannot be tested at the out set or in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. When fact alleged make out an offence then mala fide of informant would be of secondary importance and cannot themselves be the basis for quashing and not to embark the allegations likely to be established or not and hence under the facts and circumstances, I do not find fit to interfere with the impugned order and hence the petition is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)