CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.322 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) RAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF KANHAIYA SINGH, RESIDENT OF DALSAGAR, P.O. BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTT. BUXAR. -------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI GOPAL SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMPUJAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF DALSAGAR, P.S. BUXAR (INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT – BUXAR. -------OPPOSITE PARTIES. ------------ For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. B.J. Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: Heard. This is an application for quashing the order dated 22.8.2003, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Buxer, in Cr. Revision No. 174 of 2003 by which he has dismissed the application of the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in Complaint Case No. 221(C) of 2003, Trial No. 1460 of 2003 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in so far as the petitioner is concerned. On 18.5.2005, notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and further proceeding in the court below was 2 stayed. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 appeared through a validly executed Vakalatnama and is present in Court. The case of the Complainant is that one accused Santosh Kumar Singh prepared certain documents showing that he was the Complainant’s son. In some documents, allegedly the petitioner as a lawyer had identified him as being the son of Gopal Singh. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being an Advocate, on production of certain documents before him, he had identified the co-accused Santosh Singh as the son of the Complainant and he did not stand to gain in any manner even if he did so wrongfully. The further submission is that there is total absence of any ‘mens rea’ attributed to the petitioner in the identification of the co-accused as the son of the Complainant and hence, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contends that the petitioner happened to be a co-villager of the said co-accused Santosh Singh and he was hand in glove with him and, therefore, the proceeding against him may not be quashed. In my view, the entire Complaint against the petitioner is totally misplaced since there is total absence of ‘mens rea’ on the part of the petitioner in identifying the co- accused as son of the Complainant. Moreover, a number of 3 documents have been filed with the present petition including the service book of the Complainant which shows one Santosh as his son and, therefore, in my view, the Complaint so far the petitioner is concerned, is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. In view of such, this application is allowed and the proceeding, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in Complaint Case No. 221 (C) of 2003, Trial No. 1460 of 2003, is hereby quashed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 23rd July, 2010 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)