CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.29104 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. MANJU SINGH, WIFE OF RANJAN KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SAMEER NAGAR, NEAR MUNNA LODGE, P.O. KOSHI COLLEGE, KHAGARIA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :- Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has moved this Court against the order dated 29.9.2003 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the First Information Report is in two parts. In the first part, it is alleged that the petitioner i.e. Manju Singh along with her son Ritesh Kumar @ Pinto went to collect a ‘Sari’ from a dry cleaners. It 2 is said that the dry cleaners had supplied the ‘Sari’. The client dissatisfied with the work which led to exchange of hot words. The allegation at that stage is that the son Ritesh kumar @ Pinto threatened to teach the informant a lesson. 3. The next part of the occurrence is that at about 8 p.m., Ritesh Kumar @ Pinto i.e. the son of the petitioner along with some other persons came armed with a pistol etc. and assaulted the informant. 4. From the plain reading of the First information Report, it is apparent that in the first part of the occurrence, when the petitioner was also said to be present, there is no element of a criminal offence, hot exchange of words which may be deemed to be natural behaviour when a client is dissatisfied with the work of the person concerned. In the second part of the occurrence the name of the petitioner does not figure at all and, therefore, I find that the Court below has not applied its mind while taking cognizance of offences as described above. The petitioner cannot be saddled with the offences of forming an 3 unlawful assembly, assaulting the informant and stealing some money from his pocket as admittedly she was not present at the place of occurrence as per the First Information Report. 5. In the circumstances, I quash the order of cognizance dated 29.9.2003, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in G.R. Case No. 704 of 2003. This application is thus, allowed. Patna High Court, The 9th of February, 2011 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)