IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23010 of 2000 PRABHAT RANJAN SRIVASTAVA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with Cr.Misc. No.20798 of 2000 RITA VERMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 24.6.2010. Heard the sides. These two petitions could be examples as to how forum of a criminal Court is being misused so as to harassing the adversaries of an offender by the offender. Prabhat Ranjan Srivastava is the petitioner in one petition and in the other petition Rita Verma, his wife, is the petitioner. Rita Verma had invested Rs.15,000/- and had obtained certificates in proof thereof along with certain receipts from the office bearers of Patla Finance Company Limited. She was a patient of cancer and not getting the maturity amount after maturity of the invested amount, she ran from pillar to post to get back her money and when she did not get the same, she filed a complaint petition in utter bewilderment and that complaint petition was sent to the police and on that basis FIR of Hajipur P.S.Case No.49 of 1999 under Sections 406, 420, 468 etc Penal - 2 - Code was drawn up. The police found the allegations true on investigation and submitted chargesheet and it is reported to this court that the case is on trial. The accused persons who were figuring in the FIR of Rita Verma set up the complainant to file a complaint bearing no.891(C)of 1999 before Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna and alleged that the two petitioners were acting as agents of the said finance company and had received sums of money for investment in account number which is described in paragraph 7 of the complaint petition and which has to bring benefits to him as per statement in that very paragraph. The complainant stated that he did not get the promised benefit and did not receive the maturity amount either along with the bonus and, as such, he approached petitioner Prabhat Ranjan Srivastava who abusively treated him and threw the pass book on his face threatening that he would teach him a lesson and further that petitioner Prabhat Ranjan Srivastava shall ruin the fate of the complainant. The learned Magistrate embarked upon the - 3 - enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after recording a few statements of witnesses went on to pass the summoning orders as against the two petitioners and others. It may be noted that very often the forum of criminal court is misused for settling scores or heaping indignation upon persons of the society and as such the magistracy was cautioned by the Supreme Court times and again to hold enquiries in complaint petitions and after being satisfied with the truthfulness of the allegations in most of its parts should proceed to pass an order summoning an accused. In 1998 SCC(Crl)1400 Pepsi Foods Ltd Vrs. Special Judicial Magistrate and in many others also, the Supreme Court have repeatedly been pointing out to our magistracy that summoning an accused is a serious business and it should not be done casually. This Court has been very progressive in the above and it has formulated a rule which is numbered as Rule no.31 of Criminal Court Rules which reads as under:- “The examination of the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, is not to be a mere form, but an intelligent enquiry into the subject-matter of the complaint carried far enough to enable the Magistrate to exercise his judgment as to whether there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding.” - 4 - If the Magistrates read the above rule then they will find that they have to make intilligent enquiry into the truthfulness of the complaint and they have never to take enquiries under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as a matter of form. I had the occasion of dilating upon the above rule 31 in one of the cases decided by me and I had very much pointed out to the Magistrates of the State that the Rule required them to deeply involve themselves to the facts of the case and further to go into the root of the matter so as to having a proper grip and grasp of the fact as also the truth in order that the whole exercise may enable him to apply his judgement as to whether there was really any sufficient ground to proceed in the case. It hardly requires to be pointed out again that when an order of summoning is passed against any person calling upon him to attend the proceedings in the court, it creates great difficulties for the person besides creating a clot over his liberties. As such, the passing of summing order should not be taken so lightly. As just pointed out, the present complaint case is a rank example as to how the - 5 - forum of a criminal case could be misused by unscrupulous elements who had themselves indulged in misappropriation and forgery to put criminal pressure on innocent investors like the two petitioners. It is further an illustrative case as to what could be spitting at the accused or harassing him with a malicious intent. The case, besides, appears quite frivolous too. In the result, the whole prosecution initiated against the petitioners including the summoning order passed on 10.9.1999 in Complaint Case No.891(c)of 1999 are hereby quashed. The two petitions are allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )