CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41912 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------ 1. SIHENSHWAR YADAV @ SIHENSHWAR PRASAD YADAV, Son of Late Laxmi Yadav 2. Raman Kumar, Son of Sihenshwar Yadav 3. Roshan Kumar, Son of Sihenshwar Yadav , All residents of Village- Barahi, Police Station- Madhepura, District-Madhepura 4. Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Kumar, Son of Lakhan Yadav, resident of Village-Pakari, Police Station-Pipra, District- Supaul ------------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Arjun Paswan, Son of Late Jhari Lal Paswan, resident of village- Dudhaila, Police Station-Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ---- Opp.Parties. --------------- For the petitioners: S/Sri Uday Chand Prasad, Manoj Kumar, Advocates For Opp.Party no.2: Sri Vivekanand Singh, Advocate For the State: Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.277C of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.277C of 2006 on an 2 allegation of commission of offences under Sections 323,341, 379, 420, 468, 471, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of SC/ST Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that on 1.5.2006 in the morning at about 8.00 A.M., while the complainant was watching crop over the land appertaining to Khata No.205 (new 833), Khesra Nos. 4345, 4229, 4169, 7670, 5326, 5020, petitioners arrived there and asked him as to why he was watching the crop over the land of the accused persons. Thereafter, accused persons assaulted the complainant and in the said occurrence, one of the accused, namely, petitioner no.1 forcibly took Rs.500/- from his pocket, petitioner no.3 took HMT wrist watch costing Rs.750/- and thereafter all the accused persons fled away. After filing of the complaint and conducting enquiry, learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 took cognizance of offences under Section 341, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code only , not under the SC/ST Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. At the very outset, it was submitted by Sri Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is a retired Government teacher and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were at the relevant time students of Engineering College and studying at Rajasthan and Kochin respectively. It was submitted that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously and with oblique motive, which is evident from the fact that few months before the alleged occurrence in a proceeding under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Madhepura had appointed Circle Officer, 3 Madhepura as Receiver on the basis of the report and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, i.e. order dated 4th March, 2006. It has been pointedly submitted that the same land, which has been mentioned in the complaint petition, was the subject matter of the proceeding before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Madhepura in Misc. Case No.478 of 2004. It has further been submitted that despite the fact that the receiver was already appointed on 4.3.2006 over the land in question, the complainant has not even whispered in the complaint petition regarding such proceedings. Accordingly, as per Sri Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners , the present complaint was filed with a view to wreak vengeance against the petitioners and on the basis of false accusation , petitioners have been made accused 5. Sri Viveka Nand Singh, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted by the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 that the said plea can well be raised at the stage of charge. Those facts may not be looked into at this stage that too at the time of hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has not disputed the fact that in a proceeding i.e. Misc.Case No.478 of 2004 on 4.3.2006, order was passed after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. 6. I have also heard Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the order 4 dated 4.3.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.478 of 2004, it appears that in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant had participated through his advocate and once the receiver was appointed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in respect of the land in question, the story developed by the petitioners in the complaint petition that he was watching the crop over the land in question appears to be doubtful. Moreover, in the complaint petition, non-disclosure of fact regarding the proceeding of Misc. Case No.478 of 2004 makes it clear that in a well designed manner the complaint was filed only on the sole object of falsely implicating and harassing the petitioners. The Court is of the opinion that the complaint was filed with oblique motive and, as such, on the ground of malicious prosecution, the order of cognizance and entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.277C of 2006 is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 18.6.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.277C of 2006 and entire criminal proceeding in the said complaint petition is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 25th November,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)