IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52504 of 2007 1. KANHAIYA LAL JAIN, SON OF LATE CHOGGA LAL JAIN 2. SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN, SON OF KANHAILAL JAIN 3. RAKESH KUMAR PAWAN @ PAWAN KR. SINGH, SON OF AJAY KUMAR SINGH 4. RAJESH KUMAR PUNKAJ @ PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF AJAY KUMAR SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NEW AREA AURANGABAD, WARD NO. 4, P.S., NAGAR, DISTT. AURANGABAD. -------- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TRIBHUBAN SINGH, SON OF LATE KAILASH SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NEW AREA, WARD NO. 4, P.S. NAGAR, AURANGABAD, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ------OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan , A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Gayasuddin Khan, Advocate. ------------ 3. 02/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 5.2.2007 by which Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad, in protest-cum-complaint petition No. 743 of 2006 has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 461 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. On 30.9.2005, the opposite party No. 2 filed a written report before the Officer-in-Charge, Aurangabad Town P.S. that a library was functioning in the house of one Bhaglu Sah and on the night between 29th and 30th, some unknown persons had committed theft of the books. He then put an additional lock upon the same. The case was instituted against unknown persons and finally a final report was submitted as no clue. In the meanwhile on - 2 - 8.5.2006 i.e. about 8 months later, the present protest was filed alleging therein that on 30.9.2005 at 4.00 P.M. after the report of the theft of 29.9.2005, once again a theft was committed in the library. In the said complaint in the column of accused, four persons have been mentioned as being the miscreants who committed theft on 30.9.2005. There is no explanation as to why till seven months no report was made to the police about the subsequent occurrence of theft that had taken place on 30.9.2005. Moreover, from the documents annexed in the present case, it appears that the house in which the alleged library from where theft of books had taken place was a disputed property between the present petitioners and the alleged owner Bhaglu Sah. The submission is that on account of title suit which was pending between the parties and the counter claims that had been made by the present petitioners and Bhaglu Sah on the property in question that the present Complaint has been filed maliciously. Moreover, from the perusal of the complaint, it appears that the same is totally rambling in nature without any particulars and apart from the names of the petitioners having been mentioned in the column of the accused, no further particulars have been given. I find no reason that the prosecution against the petitioners on this general and vague complaint should continue any further and, therefore, allow this application, holding continuance of the proceedings to be a gross abuse of the process of the court. - 3 - Under the circumstances, the order dated 5.2.2007 passed by M.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and Aurangabad, in complaint-cum-protest petition No. 743 of 2006 is quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)