CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23297 OF 2000 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- RAJENDRA SHARMA SON OF LATE RAM NANDAN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAGHAW PUR, P.S.BIHTA, DISTRICT PATNA ……… …..... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KEDAR NATH SINGH SON OF DARWARI SINGH, SECRETARY, SITA RAM ASHRAM TRUST BIHTA, RAGHAWPUR, BIHTA, DISTT. PATNA ------ For the petitioner: None For opp.Party No.2: None For the State: Mr. A.M.P. Mehta.A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------------ Rakesh Kumar,J. No one either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of opposite party no.2 is present. However, a counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is on the record. 2. 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 13.7.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Bihta P.S. Case No.87 of 1994/Tr. No.210 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected a petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 had earlier filed a complaint case in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in the month of April, 1994 alleging therein that in between 4.6.1988 and 13.2.1993 the petitioner and one Bhola Prasad, who were entrusted to keep accounts of income 2 and expenditure of Sitaram Ashram Trust, Bihta, had misappropriated a sum of Rs.24,507/- collected from different means, withdrew Rs.3,520/- from the account of the trust and misplaced press articles worth Rs.6,000/-. The said complaint was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, a first information report vide Bihta P.S. Case No.87 of 1994 was registered for the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated by the police and finally the police was of the opinion that dispute in between the parties was civil in nature and, accordingly, final form was submitted by the police. The complainant, who is opposite party no.2 in the present case, had filed a protest petition. After filing of the final form, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted that the police had gone in collusion with the accused persons and, thereafter, final form was submitted. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and perusing the materials available in the case diary, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur by its order dated 20.9.2997 took cognizance of the offences under sections 406 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it appears that after order of cognizance it was clarified that while the matter was pending, due to fire in the court premises original record of the case was destroyed. Subsequently, the records were re-constructed. 4. At the stage of charge a petition was filed on 3 behalf of the petitioner for his discharge and the Sri Ram Awadh Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur by its order dated 13.7.2000 has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition and it was admitted on 15.2.2002 for hearing. While admitting the petition, it was directed that pending final hearing of the application, further proceeding in Tr. No.210 of 1998 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 6. In this case a counter affidavit duly signed by opposite party no.2 on 15.2.2002 was filed and the same is on the record. The opposite party no.2 by its counter affidavit has denied the detailed stand taken by the petitioner in the present petition. 7. Perusal of the present petition makes it clear that the petitioner had taken a plea that he was functioning as the President of duly constituted Managing Committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the Trust and the complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2 with ulterior motive. In the petition it has also been indicated that a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 258(C) of 1993 was instituted by the Headmaster of Swami Sahjanand Sanskrit High School situated within the campus of Sitaram Ashram under the aforesaid trust on an allegation that the complainant of this case had removed the articles from the press and from the school after breaking the locks and assaulted teachers. The petitioner in pargarph-9 of the petition has further 4 stated that a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also pending in between the petitioner and the complainant since the complainant was trying to capture the Trust land. 8. On perusal of the record it appears that both the petitioner and the complainant were in litigating term relating to the affairs of the Trust in question and due to that reason police during investigation had found that it was a dispute of civil nature and, as such, final form was submitted by the investigating officer. 9. The court is aware that at the stage of charge there is no requirement to examine or scrutinize the evidence but keeping in view the fact that in the present case alleged occurrence had taken place lastly on 13.2.1993, this court was persuaded to examine and scrutinize the materials available on the record. This court is of the opinion that once in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the police had already submitted final form with a remark that the dispute was civil in nature coupled with the fact that the petitioner had also claimed himself as President of the Trust in question whereas the complainant was claiming to be Secretary, it appears that it is an appropriate case to interfere with the criminal proceeding which has been initiated on the basis of the complaint filed in the year 1994. On the basis of materials available on the record and in view of the pendency of the criminal proceeding since more than 26 years, the court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. 5 Patna High Court The 19th July,2010 Md.S./NAFR. Accordingly, for the ends of justice the order of rejection of discharge petition dated 13.7.2000 passed in Bihta P.S. Case No.87 of 1994/Tr. No.210 of 1998 by Sri Ram Awadh Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur as well as entire criminal proceeding, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)