Criminal Miscellaneous No.3737 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- 1.Mahanth Ghanshyam Das @ Ghanshyam Das @ Ghanshyam Das,Chela of Late Mahanth Ram Das, R/o Village- Mahathi, P.S. Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur 2. Bhuneshwar Pathak @ Nunu Pathak S/O Kapleshwar Pathak, R/O Village- Mahathi, P.S. Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur --------------------------Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Awadhesh Prasad Singh, Son of Late Lakhan Singh, resident of Village-Mahathi, P.S.Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur ------------------------Opp.Parties. --------------- For the petitioners: Sri Gopal Pandey, Advocate For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2: None -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by Sri K.S. Singh ‘Sengar’, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rosera in C.R. No.705 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323,406,465, 417 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons to the petitioners. 2. Short facts of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint, vide Complaint case No.705 of 1998 alleging therein that petitioner no.1 was the Secretary and petitioner no.2 2 was the Chairman of Mithila Dugdh Utpadak Sahyog Samiti, Mahathi and in such capacity they had committed several misconduct and misappropriation of fund of the society and also the petitioners by committing fraud had obtained signature of several members of the Society and by committing fraud they got themselves selected again as Secretary and Chairman of the Society respectively and on objection raised by the complainant , the complainant was abused. 3. Sri Gopal Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, has vehemently argued that the present complain petition was filed maliciously due to the reason that in the election of the society when Opp.Party no.2 was defeated , he filed the instant complaint petition. It was argued that the entire proceeding in complaint petition is liable to be quashed on the ground that it is a malicious prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexures 2 and 3 to the present petition, which are photo copies of the audit report of the Society in question by a company of Chartered Accountant and during the audit no irregularity was found in the society. Accordingly, it has been prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.1.2000 as well as entire prosecution. 4. In this case despite the fact that Opp.Party no.2 had entered his appearance through his Advocate, at the time of hearing none has come forward on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. 3 5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey , learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State and has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. In ordinary course, the Court is not required to interfere with the order of cognizance, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is necessary to interfere with the impugned order. The Court is satisfied that since Opp.Party no.2 was defeated in the general election and he was ceased to be member of the committee of the Society , the present complaint petition was filed. 7. In the present complaint petition, a vague and bald allegation was made and on such untenable allegation, the proceeding in the present complaint was initiated against the petitioners. Moreover, the order of cognizance, which was passed on 19.1.2000, was stayed by this Court, while admitting the present petition for hearing on 14.3.2000 and order of stay is still continuing. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of pendency of the case for such a long time, it is desirable to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that allowing the prosecution on such a complaint petition will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court and, as such, the order of cognizance dated 4 19.1.2000 and also all subsequent proceedings in C.R. No.705 of 1998 are quashed. Accordingly, petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 5th July,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )