IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11998 of 2006 SHASHANK MATHUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate and Laxmi Kant Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate. --------------- O R D E R This application by the sole accused of Complaint Case No.92 of 2004 is for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding emanating out of the said complaint case including the order dated 19.2.2004 passed therein by Sri K.R.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gopalganj, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. against the petitioner. The complainant, one Ashish Pratap Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, claiming to be a student of Kanpur Medical College, filed the said complaint on 16.1.2004 in respect of an occurrence which allegedly took place earlier on 4.1.2004. It was stated that his friends Suryakant Ojha and Anurag Prasad Verma were students of Allahabad Medical College. It is said that on 3.1.2004 the petitioner along with the aforesaid two friends came to him and disclosed their plans to visit Kathmandu. The complainant having agreed to accompany them, they accordingly proceeded for Motihari by bus. However, while at Gopalganj, the bus got out of order. The petitioner is said to have claimed that he had a relative at Birganj and - 2 - went to contact him on telephone. On return he gave out that the relative had advised them to hire a vehicle and arrive at Birganj where all arrangements for their stay and visit to Kathmandu would be made. It is alleged that the petitioner took Rs.5000/- from each of them on the pretext of arranging a vehicle and went to town. When he did not return till late night, the complainant sent his two friends in search and when he could not be found, the three of them returned to Allahabad. Here, they came to know that the petitioner was living in Kanpur whereupon they went to Kanpur where he refused to meet the complainant and his friends. However, on the next day they met but the petitioner refused to refund the money he had allegedly taken from the complainant and his two friends. The Kanpur Police allegedly were informed but they advised the complainant to lodge the case at Gopalganj which was the actual P.O. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and as a counter blast of Tilaknagar P.S. Case bearing F.I.R. No.440 of 2002 filed by him against the complainant and his two friends for having allegedly assaulted and caused grievous hurt to him and that the present complainant and his two friends were arrested in connection therewith. Subsequently, the chargesheet against all the three persons was submitted and they were put on trial. In this connection, it was submitted that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries as detailed in Medico Legal Case Sheet of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi and that the charges under Sections 325/34 - 3 - I.P.C. were framed against all the three accused on 1.4.2003. It has further been submitted that ever since the framing of the charge the present complainant and his two friends were constantly pressurizing the present petitioner to enter into a compromise in the aforesaid case and since the present petitioner was not agreeable, the instant complaint had been filed on concocted and improbable ground. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to point out that the improbability of the complaint case would be apparent from the fact that having lodged F.I.R. against the complainant and his two friends it was difficult to digest that they would undertake to visit Kathmandu jointly. There appears sufficient force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and from a plain reading of the complaint the entire story as narrated therein appears to be one which apart from being improbable appears to be malicious. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 6th of August, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.