CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4360 OF 2002 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- Ramdeo Singh, Son of Late Parmeshwar Singh, resident of Mohalla-Sheikhpura, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna --------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Shanti Devi, Wife of Shri Ramjeet Singh, resident of Mohalla-Sheikhpura, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna -------------- Opp.Parties. ---------- For the petitioner: Sri Rajendra Prasad, Advocate For the State: Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2: Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.1.2001 passed by Sri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,Patna in Complaint Case No.1605 ( C ) of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 419,467,468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1605C of 1999. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that her mother-in-law Lachhiya Devi, wife of Sakaldeep Singh had executed two deeds of gift in favour of the complaint and her husband in the year 1984. It was disclosed that mother-in-law of the complainant had gifted lands, which was property of her parents ( Naihar). It was alleged that subsequently she 2 noticed that other sons, grandsons and her husband ( Sakaldeep Singh) in connivance with other accused persons including the petitioner got prepared a forged gift of deed in favour of accused nos.1 and 2. It was further disclosed in the present complaint petition that accused persons had committed fraud with her mother- in-law and said deed of gift was got prepared on 17.10. 1984. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner was identifier of the fictitious person who had executed the deed in the name of Lachhiya Devi, mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant has asserted in the complaint petition that accused no.6 on 16.11.1999 told the complainant that he had purchased the land in question from accused nos.1 and 2. The complainant has also admitted in the complaint petition that on the said allegation, earlier her mother-in-law had filed a complaint, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.157C of 1985 against accused nos.1 to 5 and one Sakaldeep Singh and accused persons were summoned in the said case, but Lachhiya Devi died on 14.1.1999 and thereafter the case was disposed of in absence of any pairvi on 15.2.1997. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint case, three witnesses were examined , who supported the complainant’ case and thereafter by the impugned order , the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 15.1.2001, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 3.3.2004. In the case while admitting, it was directed that during the pendency of this application, the interim order dated 13.9.2002 shall remain operative. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the present complaint petition was required to be rejected on the ground that for the same cause of action earlier complaint petition, which was filed by mother-in-law of the complainant , after thorough enquiry was rejected by the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that it is true that after cognizance at pre-charges stage none had appeared on behalf of the complainant. However, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 15.2.1997 after perusing the materials available on record had discharged the accused persons including the petitioner from the case. It was submitted that once the petitioner was discharged from the same charge/allegation, second complaint petition on the same allegation was not maintainable. It was further submitted that had there been any cause, the complainant would have filed a suit for declaring the said deed as void. However, till date no such suit was filed by the complainant or her husband, who were claiming their right over the land on the basis of deed of gift, executed by her mother-in-law. It was also submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken long back in the year 1984.The complainant was knowing well regarding the occurrence since she had claimed that she was residing with her mother-in-law( earlier complainant) right from the very beginning. It was submitted that for the occurrence, which had taken place in the year 1984, the petitioner may not be directed in the year 2010 to participate in the criminal proceeding before the court below. It was argued that once the complaint petition on the same charge was rejected after enquiry and before charge, the second complaint petition was not maintainable. On the aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance. 5. Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was 4 submitted that in the present case cause of action arose subsequently in the year 1999. Learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has referred to paragraph-1 of the complaint petition, i.e. Annexure-1 to the petition. It was submitted that accused no.1, who had claimed to be purchaser of the land in question came and told the complainant on 16.11.1999 that she had purchased the land from accused nos.1 and 2. The complainant immediately thereafter had filed the present complaint petition. It was submitted that accused no.6 was not earlier arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.157C of 1985 and, as such, according to Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2; it cannot be considered as a second complaint. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition. 6. I have also heard Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have minutely perused the contents of both the complaint petitions, which have been brought on record as Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition. In earlier complaint petition, the father-in-law of the complainant was also made accused. However, since he died, he was not made accused in the present complaint petition, which was filed in the year 1999. Once the complainant herself had accepted that on earlier occasion on the charge of being identifier of a fictitious person, this petitioner was made accused and that complaint after enquiry and cognizance at the pre-charges stage was rejected, there was no occasion for the complainant to remain silent even for two years after rejection of the first complaint, i.e. Complaint Case No.157 C of 1985, which was rejected on 15.2.1997. The said complaint was filed by none else, but the mother-in-law of the complaint and the complainant herself had admitted that she was all 5 through residing with her mother-in-law. So there was no reason for her to again wait for two years. The first complaint petition was rejected on 15.2.1997 and thereafter the present complaint was filed in the year 1999 without giving any explanation. Of course, a plea was taken that on 16.11.1999, the purchaser, who had purchased the land from accused nos.1 and 2, informed her and thereafter complaint was filed. It is not in dispute that in the case, the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1984 and it is also not in dispute that earlier complaint petition for the same allegation against the petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The Court considers that there is no reason to allow continuance of further proceeding in the present complaint case. Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above,the Court is of the opinion that allowing prosecution of the petitioner on such allegation that too after such a long period will amount to allowing abuse of process of the court . With a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, it is necessary to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and, as such, order of cognizance dated 15.01.2001 passed by Sri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1605C of 1999 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 25th August,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. (Rakesh Kumar, J.)