IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41324 of 2007 1. KRIPANAND PATHAK SON OF KUMARANAND PATHAK 2. BIJAYANAND PATHAK SON OF KUMARANAND PATHAK 3. KUSHALANAND PATHAK @ KULANAND PATHAK SON OF KUMARANAND PATHAK 4. ABHAYANAND PATHAK @ TATA SON OF ACHLANAND PATHAK 5. ACHLANAND PATHAK SON OF LATE GOKHULANAND PATHAK 6. SAMPURNANAND PATHAK SON OF KUMARANAND PATHAK ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAGHWAN, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA ……………………PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHYAMANAND MISHRA SON OF LATE NATHUNA MISHRA R/O VILLAGE- MAGHWAN, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA ……………….OPPOSIT E PARTIES ----------- 5 21/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State. The instant application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VI, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 257 of 2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. 30 ( c ) of 2002 whereby and whereunder the order dismissing the complaint Case No. 30 ( c ) of 2002 dated 20.2.2006 was over ruled and the learned Magistrate was directed to take cognizance of the offence which was earlier the subject matter of controversy in Paliganj P.S. Case No. 29 of 1997. Short facts, leading to the instant petition is that a complaint was filed by the complainant, Opposite Party 2 No. 2, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur bearing Complaint Case No. 30 (C) of 2002 with regard to an occurrence of 1.1.1997 at 4 P.M. in which it was alleged that the petitioners with deadly weapons came to the house of the complainant and they burnt the western portion of the roof of his house. On cry the villagers assembled and the accused persons escaped. The complaint was entertained and after examination of the complainant (opposite party no. 2) on solemn affirmation and the witnesses and after considering the materials available on record the Complaint Case No. 30 ( c ) of 2002 was dismissed on 31.7.2002. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 572 of 2002. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna vide order dated 13.10.2004 remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate and directed for further inquiry. The learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter in view of the direction of the revisional Court and again dismissed the complaint petition on 20.2.2006. Again the matter was brought to the revisional Court by preferring Cr. Rev. No. 257 of 2006 and the same was allowed vide order 14.6.2007 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna which was impugned in the instant application. The date of occurrence mentioned in the 3 complaint is dated 1.1.1997 at 4.00 P.M. and for the same occurrence the opposite party no. 2 has filed complaint earlier on 3.1.1997 under Sections 147, 144, 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code vide Complaint Case No. 7 ( c) of 1997 which was sent to the Paliganj Police Station for institution of the case and accordingly Paliganj P.S. Case No. 27 of 1997 was registered for the occurrence dated 1.1.1997. After the police registered the first information report, the matter was investigated into and the police after investigation submitted final form finding the case of the complainant/informant to be false. The police also recommended for initiation of a criminal proceeding against the complainant/informant under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The final form submitted by the police was accepted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur vide order dated 10.7.1998. The order accepting the final form was challenged before the learned Sessions Court vide Criminal Revision No. 351 of 1998 which was dismissed vide order dated 13.9.1999. Against the order passed in criminal revision application the opposite party no. 2 preferred application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 29146 of 1999 and this Court after hearing the parties passed a detailed 4 order and dismissed the quashing application vide order dated 14.12.2001 annexed at annexure-6 to the instant petition. About one month after the order passed by this Court the opposite party no. 2 has filed the fresh complaint on 16.1.2002 against the petitioners for the same occurrence which was subject matter of adjudication before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 19146 of 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the complaint of Opposite Party No. 2 has come up to this Court for consideration and all the three Courts, namely, the Court of the A.C.J.M., Sessions Judge and this Hon’ble Court after examining the matter thread by thread and after hearing the parties at length came to the conclusion that the Opposite Party No. 2 has no case and it was held that dismissal of the complaint was right in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the same occurrence the complaint was filed but the revisional court has not considered the mandate of the earlier orders and in violation of the earlier orders including one of the orders of this Court, the order of the learned Magistrate was interfered with. Both the orders of the revisional Court, namely, the order dated 13.10.2004 and 14.6.2007 were not brought to the notice 5 of the revisional Court and so the revisional Court has erred in passing the order which will unnecessarily create litigation which has been settled by this Hon’ble Court. On both the occasions the petitioners were not heard by the revisional Court and the Opposite Party No. 2 by misleading the Court has got the order in its favour. The Opposite Party No. 2 is not even allowing the matter to be settled even after it was decided by this Court. He is doing so only with a view to save himself from the recommended prosecution under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that no doubt the complaint was dismissed earlier but the second complaint on the same facts maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 38 (Poonam Chand and Another Jain V. Fazru) and 2010 ACR 79 (Ranvir Singh Versus State of Haryana and Another). The earlier order of this Court is a detailed order which has discussed the entire facts available on the record. The finding of this Court is being reproduced below:- “Now coming to the point raised by the petitioner that protest petition has not been treated as complaint petition I find that the 6 protest petition (Annexure-III) which was filed before submission of final form by the petitioner in the court below simply states that petitioner had serious doubt that the I. O. of the case may damage the case in collusion with accused persons. In the prayer portion of this protest petition it was simply stated that protest may be kept on record and to pass necessary order or orders which the court below deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice. In the impugned order it is stated that after submission of final form no proper complaint by the petitioner was filed. It is not the case of petitioner also that he filed any protest petition after submission of final form which could have been treated as complaint petition. The protest petition (Annexure-III) was filed by petitioner before submission of final form in which only apprehension that the I. O. may damage the case of petitioner was mentioned. I therefore find that the present protest petition filed by petitioner cannot be treated as complaint petition and after submission of final form the court below considered the materials on record including the protest petition filed by the petitioner. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.” The present litigation is in the second round. After the first round was settled by this Court, it was expected that the matter will end but the matter is again being agitated. The cause, date of occurrence and the 7 parties are the same. A petty matter is being litigated since 1.1.1997 and the matter was not being allowed to settle though it has been a subject matter of litigation between the same parties up to this Court. No doubt second complaint on the same facts are maintainable but when the matter has almost been settled by this Court then the same facts cannot be allowed to be subject matter of fresh dispute between the same parties. There is no bar of further proceeding under the law. A Magistrate to whom a complaint is made is bound to proceed in the manner as set out under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. he has to examine the complainant and unless he has reason to disbelieve the truth of the complainant, he is bound to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint and he is bound to do justice. The law is settled. But when mater has been agitated on number of times between the parties up to the revisional court of the Sessions Judge and ultimately up to this Court then the matter must end. A person cannot be kept in consistent threat of harassment for decades even after the matter is settled by this Court. This Court has applied its mind and hence it is not proper that this matter should be allowed to remain pending between the parties for ever. The revisional Court interfering with the order of the A.C.J.M., 8 Danapur has not taken into consideration that the matter has earlier come up to this Court and in routine manner he has passed the impugned order. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that the order of the revisional Court is bad and fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 14.6.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 257 of 2006 is hereby quashed and this application is allowed. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)