IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.32847 OF 2008 HIMANSHU KUMAR JHA, SON OF VIJAY KANT JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUDHIYAWA/OJHATOLA, POLICE STATION PAHARPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ……………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BADRINATH JHA, SON OF LATE SURESH JHA 3. AKHILESH JHA, SON OF LATE JAGDISH JHA 4. RAJU JHA, SON OF BADRINATH JHA 5. SONU JHA, SON OF BADRINATH JHA 6. TIRPIT JHA, SON OF LATE APUSH JHA 7. SUMESHWAR JHA, SON OF LATE APUSH JHA 8. BIPIN JHA @ SHAMBHUNATH JHA, SON OF MADHUSUDAN JHA 2-8 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUDHIYAWA OJHATOLA, POLICE STATION PAHARPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 9. VYAS JHA, SON OF NARSIM JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POKHARBINDA, POLICE STATION BETTIAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 4 02/08/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2007 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, East Champaran has upheld the order dated 19.12.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. C-2500 of 2005 (Eng. 124 of 2006) by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari has dismissed the complaint petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. One First Information Report being Paharipur Police Station Case No. 49 of 2005 was instituted by 2 Akhileshwar Jha, alleging therein that this petitioner and some others had assaulted him. The petitioner was arrested in that case. On arrest, he was produced before the Court below. The order of the Court below indicates that the petitioner did not make any complain regarding any injury, however, the Court below found that the petitioner had some injury on his face and directed that the same may be treated by the jail doctor. At that stage, the petitioner did not make any complaint that he was assaulted during the alleged occurrence by the informant or any other person, which would be obvious from the fact that the Chief Judicial Magistrate would have recorded this fact in the same manner in which he noticed the injury on the face, even though there was no complaint by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was treated by the jail doctor. After the petitioner was released on bail, he filed a complaint alleging that during the alleged occurrence, for which Paharpur Police Station Case No. 49 of 2006 was instituted, he was badly assaulted by the informant and his men. Raju Jha assaulted the petitioner on his head and was also inflicted lathi blows on his hand and feet by Tirpit Jha and Someshwar Jha. When he fell down, Vyas Jha is said to have sat on his chest, whereas Sonu Jha tried to press the neck of the 3 petitioner. It is alleged that some unknown persons assaulted the petitioner on his face with Chappals etc. The petitioner has also stated that the Opposite Parties took away some cash from his possession. He accepts the fact that the accused persons of the complaint case have already filed another case against him being Paharpur Police Station Case No. 119 of 2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the observations of the Court below vide order dated 03.12.2005, the facts stated in the complaint petition are supported. It is submitted that the Court below ought not to have rejected the complaint petition because it was filed after some delay. In the opinion of this Court, both the impugned orders are in accordance with law inasmuch as the Courts have considered that there was no injury report supporting the allegations made in the complaint petition and it is obvious that this complaint petition has been filed at a belated stage after 21 days of the occurrence. The petitioner had ample opportunity to file a complaint from the jail itself, if, in fact the allegations made were genuine. It may be noted that the injury recorded by the Court below was on the face, whereas according to the petitioner, he was badly assaulted on the 4 head, legs, arms etc., in fact the injury which is on the face is said to be caused by some unknown person who had inflicted blows by Chappal on his face. Considering all these facts and the fact that the case has been filed after delay and it is obviously filed to create a defence, and has rightly been dismissed by the Courts below as the applications are nothing but a way to misuse the provisions and protections provided under the law. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)