Criminal Miscellaneous No.345 OF 1999 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH son of late Bira Singh Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad at Dak Bunglow Compound, Bettiah, P.S.-Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran. ….. …..Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shambhu Prasad Gupta, son of Janak Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Ujjain Tola, P.S.-Bettiah Town, Dist.-West Champaran … ….Opp. Party ------ For the petitioner: M/s Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, B..K.Mishra and S.N.Rai For opposite party no.2: Mr.Manoj Kumar For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, who was Junior Engineer in Zila Parishad, Bettiah, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 30.11.1998 passed by Sri P.K.Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code in Trial No.1305 of 1998 arising out of Complaint Case No.1533C of 1998. 2. The opposite party no.2 after his shop in question was demolished by the petitioner and others, filed Complaint Case No.1533C of 1998 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. In the complaint petition it was alleged that the said demolition was done since the petitioner was 2 prejudiced with the complainant. It was alleged that earlier free of cost the petitioner had used the car provided by opposite party no.2. It was alleged that since on the occasion of Durga Puja the opposite party no.2 did not provide the vehicle to the petitioner, the petitioner in the garb of the order of this court which was passed in a case bearing C.W.J.C. No.2290 of 1990 unauthorisedly demolished the shop/premises of opposite party no.2. It has specifically been alleged in the complaint petition that at the time of demolition the opposite party no.2 showed an injunction order which was granted in his favour in Title Suit No.87 of 1997 dated 31.5.1998. Ignoring the request of the complainant as well as injunction order passed in Title Suit No.87 of 1997 on 24.10.1998, the premises in question was demolished and the complainant suffered a loss of about Rs.25,000/-. On these allegations the complaint petition was filed. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in support of the complaint witnesses were examined. The complainant had also filed some documents in support of his case. 3. After examining the complainant and his witnesses as well as other evidences, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 30.11.1998 has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that allegation leveled by the complainant against the petitioner was in relation to discharge of his official 3 duties. He further submits that the action was taken by the petitioner in compliance with the order of this Hon’ble Court which was passed in C.W.J.C. No.2290 of 1990 (Arun Kumar Mukherjee Vs. The State of Bihar and others). He has also referred to several documents which were annexed along with the petition. He submits that the plot in question was the plot of the District Board. In any event, according to him, without any malice, the petitioner solely with a view to implement the order of this court had taken steps for removal of the encroachment. He further submits that in the complaint petition itself the complainant has stated that for the said demolition and violation, the complainant had also filed a petition before the learned Munsif, Bettiah in Title Suit No.87 of 1997. He has heavily relied upon a judgment of this court reported in 1993 B.B.C.J. 120 (Chotelal Prasad and another Vs. State of Bihar and another). He submits that in identical situation a Bench of this court has held that prosecution of that case was an abuse of process of the court and set aside the order whereby charges were framed against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to a judgment reported in 1991(2) PLJR 315 (Vijay Kumar Thakur Vs. Prof. Mahesh Prasad Singh). 5. Mr.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in the complaint case there is specific assertion that at the time of demolition, the accused persons were shown the order of injunction passed in Title Suit No.87 of 1997. 4 He submits that for disobedience of the order passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah, the complainant had also filed a petition before the learned Munsif but at the same time criminal prosecution for alleged offence, which has been mentioned in the complaint petition, cannot be barred. He also submits that the petitioner has come before this court at the very initial stage i.e. immediately after passing of the cognizance order. So, according to him, it would not be advisable for this Court to interfere in the matter at this stage. 6. I have also examined the materials available on the record of the complaint petition, impugned order and the other materials available on the record of this case. So far as the documents which have been annexed with the present petition, I am of the view that at this stage it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine or look into such documents. The allegations has been made in the complaint petition that since the complainant had not provided free of cost vehicle to the petitioner, the said action was taken by the petitioner in a designed manner and even order of the court below was not looked into by the petitioner. So far as the judgment referred to and relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Chhote Lal Prasad case (supra) is concerned, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said judgment does not help the petitioner. In the said case, it was alleged that the shop in question was earlier allotted to the father of the petitioner of that case and after his death the petitioner of that case unauthorisedly was occupying the shop in 5 question. In the present case, it was the specific case of the complainant that in his favour injunction order was passed and that was shown and ignoring the said order, action was taken by the petitioner. Besides this, the stage when this court had interfered in Chhote Lal Case (supra) was also different. In the said case the petitioner had come against the order of framing of the charge, however, in the present case, immediately after the order of cognizance, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 7. So far as documents which have been referred to by the petitioner before this court are concerned, I am of the view that these documents can be looked into by the court below at an appropriate stage. The petitioner has got remedies available in the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, it would not be appropriate to allow the petitioner to bye-pass such statutory provisions. Time without number it has been held that the superior courts should refrain from interfering in a criminal case at an initial or interlocutory stage. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any thing warranting this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and, as such, I find no merit in this petition. This petition stands rejected. 9. In this case on 19.7.1999, this petition was admitted for hearing and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceedings in Trial No. 1305 of 1998 pending in the court below, shall remain stayed. 6 10. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 11. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 7th April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)