Criminal Miscellaneous No.23392 OF 2009 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------- ===================================================== 1. PINKI DEVI W/o Binay Kumar, Resident of village- Khusrupur Bhuski, P.S.-Khusrupur, District- Patna, At present Noida, D 17/21, Section 71, P.S. Noida Sect-58, District-Gaziabad (UP) 2. Prem Sheela Devi W/o Amarnath Sharma, 3. Amarnath Sharma son of Late Turable Sharma, 4. Gullu Sharma son of Amarnath Sharma & 5. Billu Sharma son of Amarnath Sharma Sl. No. 2 to 5 are resident of village-Khusrupur Bhuski, P.S.- Khusrupur, District- Patna --- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Asha Chaturvedi W/o Sri Manilal Chaturvedi, R/o village- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna, at present in the house of Anil Singh, R/o Mohalla-Ijra pahalwan Ghat, P.S.- Buddha Colony, District- Patna --- Opposite Parties ===================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur & Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocates For the Opposite Party no.2: Mr. A.K.Sharma Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocates For the State: A. P. P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH DATE: 12-07-2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH) 1. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Patna, in Buddha Colony P.S. Case No.217 of 2008 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioners in a case instituted under sections 448, 323, 342, 380, 504/34 and 506 Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution according to one Asha Chaturvedi is that she was a tenant in the house of one Anil Singh situated in Buddha Colony, whereas, Petitioner no.3 Amarnath Sharma, was working in the Health Department. It was alleged that in the year 2006 a loan was taken from Dena 2 Bank, Bakhtiyarpur in which petitioner no.3 Amarnath Sharma was a guarantor. In lieu of being a guarantor, the petitioner no.3 took money on two occasions and he was always giving pressure for giving more money. Two days back when she herself had gone to her village and children were present in the house, petitioner no.3 and her daughter Preeti Devi knocked at the door to enquire about the parents and then 4-5 persons also entered into the courtyard in which the petitioners were one of them and they variously abused and assaulted the children and took away rupees twelve thousand as also some jewellery on the point of pistol. 3. The police drew a formal First Information Report which was registered as Buddha Colony P.S. Case No.217 of 2008. Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted in the matter on 13.01.2009 and in course of time the Court took cognizance. At the stage of charge, the petitioners prayed for discharged by bringing to light certain facts before the court but the same was disallowed. The petitioners then pleaded before this Court that they should be discharged on account of following backgrounds of the case. 4. It was submitted by the petitioners that in February, 2006, the informant had taken loan of Rs.2,59,000/- from Dena Bank in which the petitioner no. 3 was a guarantor. On 10.02.2007 and 19.04.2007, the petitioner no.3 received notices from the Dena Bank as well as the In-charge, Medical Officer that a sum, of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.36,000/- would be deducted from the salary of the petitioner no.3, who worked in the Health Department. On 27.09.2008, the petitioner no.3 filed a representation through registered post to the Branch Manager, Dena Bank, for withdrawal of his name as guarantor and on 19.03.2009 he also filed an application in the Lok Adalat for such relief. In the meanwhile, on 24.09.2008 the present case was instituted. On behalf of the petitioners, it has 3 further been contended that in this background facts evidently the present prosecution is malicious and abuse of the process of the Court. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party no.2 contends that since strictly the allegations made in the complaint make out a criminal case against the petitioners and others, therefore, they should not be exonerated. However, he concedes that in fact petitioner no.3 was a guarantor for the informant and also that the complainant had defaulted in payment of loan for which some action had been initiated by the bank. 6. This Court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr. P. C. has certainly to ensure that the courts are not used by private parties for abusing its process and when it is conceded by the complainant that in fact the petitioner no.3 had stood guarantor for her and she had defaulted in payment of loan, reasonable inference can be drawn that in the background facts this complaint has been instituted for ulterior purpose. 7. In view of such, this application is allowed the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Patna, in Buddha Colony P.S. Case No.217 of 2008 is hereby quashed. 8. The application stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 12th July, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-