Criminal Miscellaneous No.27022 OF 1998 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.ASHA KUMARI wife of Sri Ram Binay Rai 2.Ram Binay Rai son of Triveni Rai Both residents of Room No.4, 3rd Floor, Rajendra Surgical Block, P.M.C.H., P.S.-Pirbahore, Dist.- Patna ….. ….Petitoiner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Preskilla Bankey Lal wife of Gurucharan Prasad Sinha, residents of Matrons Quarters. P.M.C.H., P.S-Pirbahore, Dist.-Patna …Opp.Parties. ------ For the petitioners: Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. With Mr.Pramod Kumar For the State: Mr.Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding pending against them as well as order dated 17.11.1998 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. By the said order dated 17.11.1998, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 426, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons for securing the attendance of the accused persons. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 25.9.1998, a complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that she being a Nurse in the Patna Medical College and Hospital was allotted a room in Nurse hostel in Rajendra Surgical Block. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that on the date of occurrence 2 i.e. 2.5.1998, while she came to her room, she was shocked after seeing that her entire articles were thrown from her room and in the room, a lock was hanging. On enquiry, she was informed that her articles from the room were thrown by these two petitioners and they have put their lock on the door. It was alleged that some articles were also missing. Thereafter, she filed the present complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was referred to the police for registration and investigation. The police thereafter registered a case vide Pirbahore P.S. Case No.257 of 1998 on 28.9.1998 for the offence under Sections 448, 426, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the F.I.R., the petitioner no.1 and her husband, who is petitioner no.2, were named as accused and two unknown persons were also made accused in the first information report. After investigating the case, the police submitted charge sheet and thereafter, by the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences as mentioned above. 3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the present petition was completely false and it was filed maliciously. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to several documents, which have been annexed along with the present petition. Along with the present petition, annexures 11 and 12 were enclosed by the petitioners and at the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. Prasad has submitted that annexures 11 and 12 are part of the case diary. On perusal of annexures 11 and 12, it is evident that it is simply a 3 typed copy. Paragraphs 5 and 6 have been typed over annexures 11 and 12 respectively in the present petition. Even some lines in paragraph-5 are missing. Placing reliance on annexures 11 and 12, Sri Prasad has submitted that during the investigation at least two witnesses namely, Prem Lata Kumari, Assistant Matron, P.M.C.H. and Sia Ram Palasa, Superintendent of Hostel, P.M.C.H., Patna have supported the stand of petitioner no.1. He submitted that they have supported that room in question was allotted to the petitioner no.1. Sri Rajendra Prasad has also referred to annexures 3 and 4 and by referring those documents, he tried to convince the court that Superintendent had noticed that room in question was unauthorizedly occupied by the complainant and the complainant unauthorizedly allowed one Malti Roy to occupy the room in question. He further referred to Annexure-5 to the petition, which is a typed copy of purported letter issued by the complainant. He submits that by the said letter, the complainant had denied the allegation of allowing Malti Roy to occupy the room in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to annexure-7. He submits that the room in question was directed to be re-allotted to the petitioner no.1 by order dated 28th April, 1998. Mr. Prasad submits that allotment letter i.e. dated 28th April, 1998 makes it clear that prior to the alleged occurrence the room in question was allotted to petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred annexure-9 to the petition which is a typed copy of purported report submitted by the Sub. Inspector of police of Pirbahore police station in the court of Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate. Mr. Prasad submits that this report also discloses that during investigation it was found that the articles lying outside the room was not of the complainant, it was of the petitioners. By referring the aforesaid documents, learned counsel for petitioners has prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding in the complaint case as well as order of cognizance. He further submits that in the present case this court had directed the opposite party to file counter affidavit. However, without serving a copy of the counter affidavit the opposite party no.2 had filed the affidavit in the present case and, as such, he submits that the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 may not be taken into account. Sri Prasad submits that there is no material in the case diary and without any evidence the court had taken cognizance for the offences as mentioned above. 4. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that perusal of the complaint petition itself makes it clear that offence was committed by petitioner no.1 along with her husband, who is petitioner no.2 and other two unknown persons. He further submits that it was not only a compliant but the complaint was referred to the police and the police after registering the first information report has thoroughly investigated the case and after collecting sufficient materials indicating the involvement of the accused persons, the police has submitted charge sheet. He further submits that in view of materials available on the record, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance 5 of the offences. On these grounds learned counsel for the State prays for rejection of the present petition. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined annexure-1, first information report, and the impugned order. So far as annexures on which learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon, I am of the view that while hearing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is not desirable for this court to look into such documents which have not been proved in accordance with law. Merely by way of annexing such documents the petitioner is not permitted to pursue this court to quash the order of cognizance. In view of the facts and allegations which have been disclosed in the first information report which was registered on the basis of complaint petition and also in view of order of cognizance, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter at this stage. The documents on which learned counsel for the petitioners are relying upon can be looked into at the stage of defence and not at this initial stage of the case that too while taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of police report. Time without number it has been held that at the initial stage or at interlocutory stage the superior court should refrain from interfering in a criminal case. As such, I am of the view that it would not be proper for this court to interfere with either of order of taking cognizance or criminal case pending against the petitioners at this initial stage particularly in view of facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition 6 and the petition stands rejected. 7. In this case by order dated 16.2.1999 while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this court had directed that in the meantime further proceeding in T.R. No.639 of 1998 (Pirbahore P.S. Case No.257 of 1998) pending in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the present case was admitted on 19.4.1999 and while admitting the case it was directed that till final order in this case is passed, the interim order dated 16.2.1999 shall continue. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 16th April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)